MAHENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 31. 1. 2000 whereby the charges were framed against the revisionists by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat under Sections 147, 342, 323 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and under Section 302 I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that there was no evidence of offence under Section 302,1. P. C. against the revisionist. The revisionist did not file the copy of the order, if any, of the learned lower Court wherein the contention of the revisionists were considered and decided. . The case dairy is also not filed along with revision and it can not be held at this stage whether there was any evidence showing prima-facie case against the revisionists. How ever, from the F. I. R. it is made out that as far as murder of Smt. Siya Dulari was con cerned, the allegations were made against Ram Babu, Shyam Babu and Munnu. Learned lower Court had framed the charge against the revisionists also under Section 302, I. P. C. on the basis of the F. I. R. and statement of the complainant it ap pears that the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. is not alleged against the revisionists. There is no intention to made out the offence under Section 120- B nor there is any allegation made in the F. I. R. Learned lower Court therefore, committed il legality in framing of charges under Sec tion 302, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. But however, as already stated, the state ment of other witnesses have not been filed. The learned lower Court is, there fore, directed to re- consider the evidence on record to see whether any prima-facie case under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. is made out against the revisionists or not.

(2.) WITH this direction, the revision is allowed and the charges framed on 31-1-2000 are set aside. The learned lower Court is directed to frame charges afresh. Revision allowed. .