SUSHIL SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is being tried by the Sessions Court for his having committed an offence under Section 302,201,202/34 Indian Penal Code. Charge sheet was filed in the Court against five accused, namely, the petitioner, Keshav Kumar, Jai Prakash, Rishi Raj and Ram Prakash. In the night of 2nd and 3rd July, 1995 an attempt was made to destroy the body of a female in the Bagia restaurant of Ashok Yatri Niwas, New Delhi A case was registered which is now popularly known as "Naina Sahni murder case". The FIR was registered on the statement of one Abdul Nazur Kunju. Constable of Delhi Police at 02.40 p.m. on 3rd July, 1995. It was alleged in the statement that he was on duty from 11.00 p.m. to 05.00 a.m. when at about 11.25 p.m. he noticed a fire in the Bar-be-Que restaurant of the Ashok Yatri Niwas; he informed Police Station Connaught Place through the wireless of the police picket behind the Western Court and when he came .back at me spot about twenty minutes back, he found the flames and me smoke coming out. It was further stated by him that he saw a young man who disclosed his name as Keshav Kumar S/o.Chiranji Lal putting wooden pieces in the Tandoor so as to intensify the fire. According to him, at that time, by the side of the Kanat, which was fixed near the entry of the restaurant, a young man whose name was disclosed by the security guard Mahesh as Sushil Sharma was also standing. It was also reported by him that "one strongly built man of a middle height wearing blue printed shirt and pant and another well built young man of middle height were also present in the restaurant by the side of the Tandoor."

(2.) In the charge sheet, two persons who are alleged to be the accomplices of Sushil Sharma, as reported in the FIR/registered on the statement of Abdul Nazur Kunju, were not named. The names neither appear in column No.2 nor as accused. Being aggrieved by non-inclusion of their names, the petitioner filed an application before the Sessions Court alleging that police had failed to cany out the investigation vis-a-vis the said two persons-as neither their names have been disclosed in column No.2 of the charge sheet nor they have been added in the category of accused and the police have acted contrary to rules by closing the case against the said two persons. The petitioner, therefore, prayed to direct an independent agency/Delhi Police to investigate the roles performed by the said two persons mentioned in the FIR and also about the statements which had been made by the Additional Commissioner of Police in the Press Conference. The statement of the Additional Commissioner of Police upon which reliance is being placed by the petitioner was to the effect that two other persons along with Sushil Sharma allegedly involved in the attempt to incinerate the body in the Bagia Restaurant Tandoor were claimed to have been identified but he refused to divulge their names and added that they were likely to be arrested soon.

(3.) The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner by holding that the Court could not restart the investigation. The investigation had been completed culminating in the charge sheet against the accused persons and the lacuna, if any, left by the prosecution could not be allowed to be filled at this stage. It has also been observed by the Court that the application appeared to have been filed with the object of obtaining another adjournment with a view to prolong the trial. The application was held to be frivolous and the Court did not deem it necessary to issue even the notice of the same to the prosecution. The application was, accordingly, dismissed. Being dis-satisfied with this order of the Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.