Calcutta High Court: Two criminal revision petitions were filed by petitioners, one by Bharati Tamang, a widow of deceased Madan Tamang then-president of the All-India Gorkha League (AIGL) whose murder forms the basis of the case and other by CBI challenging the order dated 17-08-2017 passed by the Chief Judge City Sessions Court Calcutta discharging the prime accused, Bimal Gurung, a prominent figure of the Gorkha JanaMukti Morcha (GJMM) in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 506 and 302 read with Section 34 and 120B of IPC. Subhendu Samanta, J., reinstated Bimal Gurung as an accused in the murder case of Madan Tamang, ordering further trial proceedings based on the grave suspicion against him arising from the evidence presented.
The case relates to the murder of Madan Tamang in broad daylight at Darjeeling Mall on 21-05-2010. On the same day, an FIR was lodged with the Officer-in-Charge of Darjeeling Police Station. The FIR implicated 13 individuals, including Bimal Gurung, a prominent figure of the Gorkha JanaMukti Morcha (GJMM) leading to the registration of case. Initially, the investigation was conducted by Sub Inspector and subsequently transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of West Bengal. The CID’s investigation resulted in a charge sheet against 30 individuals, excluding Bimal Gurung. Dissatisfied with the CID’s investigation, Bharati Tamang, the widow of the deceased, filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Following the court’s directive, the Government of West Bengal handed over the investigation to the CBI on 26-11-2010.
Upon taking over, the CBI submitted a chargesheet on 20-08-2011, reiterating the charges against the 30 individuals initially charge-sheeted by the CID and adding one more individual. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, challenging the CBI’s investigation and seeking a re-investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) or another central agency. On 8-11-2013, the Supreme Court transferred the sessions case from Darjeeling to the City Sessions Court, Calcutta, to continue under the supervision of the Principal District and Sessions Judge. The CBI, while continuing its investigation, submitted a supplementary charge sheet implicating 23 new individuals, including Bimal Gurung, under Sections 120B, 150, 506, and 302 of IPC.
This series of investigations and legal maneuvers culminated in the sessions case being heard in the City Sessions Court, Calcutta. The prosecution presented significant evidence against the accused, leading to the framing of charges against 47 individuals. Bimal Gurung, however, was discharged by the order of the Chief Judge on 17-08-2017, prompting the filing of the present criminal revisions by the CBI and the petitioner.
Counsel for petitioner contended that the CBI, adhering to the Supreme Court’s directive, had included Bimal Gurung in its supplementary charge sheet, supported by substantial material evidence suggesting his involvement in the conspiracy and execution of Madan Tamang’s murder. The witness statements implicated Bimal Gurung as an active participant in the conspiracy, highlighting his threats to prevent AIGL meetings and his instrumental role in the murder plot. The counsel criticized the Trial court’s order for discharging Bimal Gurung as lacking detailed reasoning and failing to be a speaking order. The order, it was argued, unjustly segregated Bimal Gurung from the other accused despite similar evidence against him, and thus, it was sought to be set aside.
Counsel for CBI emphasized that the evidence against Bimal Gurung was on par with that against one of the other accused, yet only Gurung was discharged. He referenced witness testimonies recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC that implicated Bimal Gurung in the conspiracy and murder of Madan Tamang which was corroborated by other witness statements and call detail records (CDRs), indicating a concerted effort by GJMM members, including Bimal Gurung, to prevent AIGL activities and eliminate Madan Tamang. It was argued that the Trial Court erred in discharging Bimal Gurung despite the compelling prima facie evidence of his involvement.
Counsel for Bimal Gurung argued that three separate investigations (by Darjeeling Police, CID West Bengal, and CBI) had taken place, and only the CBI’s supplementary charge sheet implicated him. They contended that the witness statements did not provide direct evidence of conspiracy involving Gurung and that his name was absent from the CDRs, suggesting no telephonic involvement in the crime. The defense maintained that the evidence against Gurung was insufficient to meet the threshold for framing charges.
The Court noted that the CBI’s charge sheet linked Bimal Gurung to the murder conspiracy, supported by statements from witnesses recorded under Section 161 and 164 of CrPC highlighted Gurung’s alleged involvement in threatening the victim and expressing intentions to harm opposition leaders. Despite the lack of call detail records (CDRs) for Gurung, the Court noted that this did not necessarily absolve him of involvement. Analyzing various legal precedents regarding framing of charges and discharge under Section 227 of CrPC, the Court emphasized the need to establish prima facie evidence to proceed against the accused and concluded that there was grave suspicion against Bimal Gurung based on the evidence and witness statements, like other accused individuals.
Thus, the Court held that Bimal Gurung’s discharge was erroneous, as the evidence raised significant suspicion against him warranting trial. The Court also emphasized that when allegations give rise to suspicion, the accused should be sent for trial. Therefore, the criminal revision petitions were allowed, Bimal Gurung was reinstated as an accused in the case, and the trial against him was directed to proceed alongside other accused persons.
[Bharati Tamang v CBI, C.R.R. No. 3685 of 2017, decided on 13-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner in CRR 3685 of 2017 : Mr. Kaushik Gupta, Mr. Arnab Mukherjee, Ms. Shreyasi Manna Advocates for the petitioner
Mr. Anirban Mitra, Advocates for the CBI
Mr. Sayan De, Mr. Kaustn Shome, Mr. Rimik Chakraborty, Mr. Sayan Kanjilal Advocates for the opposite party
The post appeared first on .