ABDUL REHMAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner-accused being aggrieved by an order dated 19 th August 2011 in Sessions Case No. 25/11by the First Additional Sessions Judge Guna (M.P.), framing thereby charges against him for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of I.P.C.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are that on 6/12/10 at Town of Raghogarh, District Guna, one Deepak Soni, s/o Babulal Soni was reported to be missing from his house. Said report was recorded in Rojnamcha of the police Station. During search on 8/12/10, the dead body of Deepak Soni in a gunny beg was found under beneath of culvert of ITI at Raghogarh. Accordingly, a Marg report was registered. During inquiry, it is gathered that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons committed murder of missing Deepak Soni and caused the evidence of offence to be disappeared with an intention to suppress the real culprit from legal punishment. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested and after investigation the charge-sheet was filed against him and other accused-persons before the criminal court. On committal, the charges were framed by the trial court against him by the order impugned, hence, this revision.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order framing alleged charges against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of law, hence same is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the learned trial court ignored the fact that none of the witnesses whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer had stated about direct or indirect involvement of the petitioner in the crime. It is further submitted that in the Memorandums of other accused-persons recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the Investigating Officer, no one had named against the petitioner. It is contended that the trial Judge on the basis of surmises and conjunctures framed the charges against the petitioner. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that by allowing the revision petition the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be acquitted of the offence. In support, reliance is placed on the decisions in the cases of Noorul Huda Maqbool Ahmed Vs. Ram Deo Tyagi and others, 2011 3 SCC(Cri) 31, Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of State of Maharashtra, 2008 10 SCC 394 (Para 60), State of (NCTE) Delhi Vs. Navjot Singh Siddhu, 2005 SCC(Cri) 1715, & Tanvi Ben Pankaj Kumr Divetia Vs. State of Gujarat, 1997 SCC(Cri) 1004].