NISAR UDDIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. B. Asthana, J. This revision by one of the accused has been directed against the order dated 20-1-1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in S. T. No. 410 of 1994 framing charges against him for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 307, IPC.

(2.) THE contention of the revisionist is that there was no evidence to presume that the revisionist has committed offence punishable under Section 302/34, IPC and, therefore, he should have been discharged under Section 227, Cr. P. C.

(3.) IN the instant case the revisionist was also armed with a country-made pistol. The co-accused had fired upon the deceased causing his death. The revisionist was physically present there and had participated in the exchange of abuses between the deceased and the co-accused. He also fired upon Kalian, who wanted to apprehend the co-accused. All this would prima facie show that they had pre- concert design which developed on the spot to cause the death of Shappu Khan and the revisionist who was present there fixed in order to held him in running away after the incident. At the stage of framing charge, therefore, it must be held that there was ground for presuming that the revisionist had committed offence punishable under Section 302/34, IPC. It is a different matter that after the evidence is recorded and in the light of the evidence and the circumstances as they appear in evidence it may not be finally said that the revisionist shared the common intention of the co-accused but at this stage there is ground for presuming that the revisionist has also committed the offence punishable under Section 302/34, IPC.