AMINUL KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 17-9-2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T. No. 807/2009 whereby charge has been framed against the petitioner for the offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 147, 302/149 and 307/149, IPC, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) In short the case for the prosecution was that on 30- 6-2009 one Rahul Yadav pulled down shutters of his Jaspal Dhaba at about 11.30 p.m. and workers of the said Dhaba were standing outside, at that time 5 persons came in a black car and asked for food and when the said request was refused, they raised hue and cry. All this resulted into a scuffle as the number of employees were more, the intruders vanished from the spot but after some time, came back in a white car and immediately on arriving on the spot made three fire in the air and started assault. It was alleged that in the said scuffle, Arjun sustained injuries and one Shankar Ustad died on spot. Thereafter the persons who caused injuries ran away. Upon investigation challan was filed against 9 persons including the petitioner. Charge was framed against the petitioner, against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for petitioner argued at length and submits that impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal and deserves to be set aside. Learned Counsel submits that investigating agency has failed to gather any such legally admissible evidence which can be sufficient to convince the Court prima facie about involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence. It is, submitted that petitioner is a Doctor by profession. Petitioner has been implicated in the alleged offence on the basis that petitioner was owner of the car bearing Registration No. MP 09 A 0182. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner was owner of the car bearing aforesaid registration number. It is submitted that Investigating Officer did not trouble itself to collect the particulars from the RTO, on the contrary the petitioner has filed the certificate of registration of the concerned RTO which goes to show that car baring No. MP 09 A 0182 belongs to one Mahesh Mishra. Learned Counsel submits that another alleged evidence against the petitioner is in the memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act whereby the petitioner was asked the name of owner of Mobile bearing No. 98265-00500 it was informed by the petitioner that this mobile belongs to one Seema Razi which must be in her possession. It is submitted that upon the information furnished by the petitioner, the mobile which has been seized from Ms. Seema Razi is bearing the number 98265-00500. It is submitted that conversation which allegedly took place is not on record to implicate the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is submitted that apart from this absolutely there is no evidence on the basis of which the petitioner can be convicted. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and impugned order whereby charge has been framed against the petitioner be quashed.