ATEEK AHMAD Vs. MOHD. ANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This revision is directed against the order dated 26.3.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2010, whereby said Court has discharged the Respondent No. 1 Mohd. Anwar, Respondent No. 2 Kamal Safdar, Respondent No. 3 Smt. Fatima Begum and Respondent No. 4 Zeenat. The Trial Court has further directed that charge shall be framed against Respondent No. 5 Shane Haider, only in respect of offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist (complainant) pleaded that at the stage of charge the evidence cannot be discussed in a hair splitting manner. It is contended that the learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error of law by recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Code of Criminal Procedure ) at the stage of framing of charge. It is also argued that the Sessions Judge has made certain observations in the impugned order which may affect the remaining trial against the accused Shane Haider.