RAMESHCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 17.2.1997 passed in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1997 by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge. Shajapur whereby framed the charges under Section 304 IPC against the applicant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) THE submission of Shri Kutumbale is that no charge can be framed against the applicant because neither the said tank belongs to the applicant nor he is responsible for committing any offence. During his arguments he has pointed out the spot map.

(3.) AFTER considering the submissions and material on record, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for interference at the stage of framing of charge because according to prosecution witnesses in their statements have supported the case of the prosecution that though the water tank does not belong to the applicant but the applicant was taking water from the said tank by installing Tillu Electric Pump and there is also prima facie evidence on record that the deceased got electric shock in water and died. Therefore prima facie material is available on record against the applicant for framing of charge.