INDRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran, J. This criminal revision has been filed against an order dated 24-5-2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 4), Etawah, refusing to discharge the revisionists and framing charge under Sections 364/302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 IPC in ST No. 117 of 2003, State v. Indra Pal and Ors.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionists is that as per the report lodged by Netra Pal, father of the deceased Mukesh Kumar, his son was murdered by the applicants, for whom he was working as driver, due to a payment dispute that arose between them. For this purpose they had invited Mukesh Kumar for a party. It is argued that Netra Pal has furnished evidence of last-seen on 22-3-2001 of the deceased with the revisionists. However, the police has found the dead-body of an unknown person on 21-3-2001 on which the inquest was performed on the same date and the post-mortem was conducted on 22-3-2001. This body is claimed to have been the body of the deceased Mukesh Kumar. It is argued that if Mukesh had died prior to 22-3-2001, the evidence of the witness becomes unreliable. Learned trial Judge has rejected this contention on the ground that there could be some confusion in the FIR and the statement of Netra Pal and he might confused 22-3-2001 with 20-1-2001 [20-3-2001 (sic)] because the report was lodged on 8-5-2001, after almost 1-1/2 months. In my view this question can only be appreciated at the trial when the witness is cross-examined. Also, learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that whether the dead-body, which was found, is that of Mukesh, is also a question which can be examined seriously during trial. At this stage it is only to be seen if prima facie material is there to connect the accused with the case. In my view, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order.