DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Dileep Kumar Advocate assisted by Sri Rajiv Gupta Advocate, learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 244 of 1995, State v. Darshan Singh and Anr., pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1), Etawah, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 120 -B I.P.C. arising out of case crime No. 32 of 1985, Police Station Basrehar, District Etawah.

(3.) I have perused the judgment. PW -6 Dau Dayal, who is a witness of conspiracy in respect of the present applicants, was disbelieved. The factum of conspiracy was scrutinized by the learned Sessions Judge and since the witnesses were unbelievable, the Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove that the conspiracy was hatched on 23 -2 -1985 at 9.00 a.m. between the accused Shree Chand, Darshan Singh, Har Govind Singh and Jagat Singh and as a consequence of the said conspiracy, Kulf Singh was murdered. In view of the fact that the main assailant, who had committed the assault, was honourably acquitted, this application has been filed for quashing the proceedings in session trial of those two accused who are only made an accused by the aid of Section 120 -B IPC. Counsel for the applicants has emphatically stressed that the charge -sheet has been filed against the present applicants in the year 1995 and they are subjected to undue harassment if they are made to face the trial. On perusal of the judgment dated 24 -3 -1995 passed in Session Trial No. 154 of 1987, State v. Shree Chand, it is amply clear that the witnesses did not come forward to support the prosecution case as such the present proceeding, which is uselessly dragged in the Court, is nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court. It has been emphasized that to the facts and circumstances of the present case the 'principle of stare' decisive is squarely applicable and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed on a number of decisions, Wazeer Yadav v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Application No. 378 of 2004, where it has been held that in the event, circumstances of the case are such that no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings against the accused and result of the proceeding is very obvious and it can be safely concluded that even if the trial is allowed to continue, it will only end in an order of acquittal, the ultimate result is a foregone conclusion, thus no fruitful purpose will be gained in the event, the proceedings are allowed to continue in respect of other accused specially when the main accused has already been acquitted. In another decision Manoj v. State of U.P., 2004(1) JIC 178 (All) : 2004 (49) ACC 302, this Court has ruled that since two accused were acquitted and the same evidence is to be adjudicated for the second time, it will only amount to wastage of time. Admittedly, no conviction can be procured and there is no prospect of the case ending in a conviction against the present applicants, it will only be a hollow formality of completing the procedure of the trial. It is almost certain that the trial will meet the same fate and, therefore, entire exercise of going through the rigmarole of trial will be rendered futile, in such a case proceedings can be quashed. In another case Sanju @ Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P., 2005(3) JIC 243 (SC) : 2005(53) ACC 429, this Court had followed the principle in the judgment of Pradeep @ Bhondu @ Bantoo v. State of U.P., 2005(51) ACC 955 and Diwan Singh v. State of U.P., 1965 (2) ACC 118, and also in Virendra Pawar v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2004(1) JIC 173 (SC) : 2003 (47) ACC 1034. It has repeatedly been held that where two persons are prosecuted though separately, for the same charge and offences in the same transaction and on the basis of same evidence, if one of them is acquitted for whatever reason then it will create an anomalous position in law if the other person is convicted and this will surely shake the confidence of the people in the administration of justice.