RAJU Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Sec. 397, 401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dtd. 20/12/2019 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, Distt. Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.41/2019, by which the charges under Ss. 323/34, 307/34, 302/34 of IPC have been framed.

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that a Dehati Nalishi was lodged by Shailendra Dangi that on 4/5/2019 he along with his friends Ankit Panthi, Abhishek Raghuvanshi and Anshul Sharma had gone to Bombay Vilas Dhabha for having their meals. It was around 09:30 in the night. Co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel, his friend Shubham Raghuvanshi and Roshan Rajpoot, came on a Scooty. They came to the complainant and started alleging as to why they are staring at them and on this issue, fight took place between the parties. Shubham assaulted on the forehead of the complainant Shailendra Dangi, as a result, he sustained injuries. Accordingly, he was taken to medical store for his treatment. Accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel, Roshan and Shubham also came on the Scooty and the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel fired a gunshot causing injury on the chest of Anshul Sharma. Co-accused Roshan Rajpoot assaulted Ankit Panthi by knife and Shubham Raghuvanshi also scuffled with the complainant. Incident was witnessed by Rahul Baghel, Sanjay Gupta, Ramu Pal and Sachin Namdev who were standing on the spot. It is submitted that during the investigation, the police recorded the memorandum of the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel, who stated that the country made pistol and three live cartridges were purchased by him from the applicant for consideration of Rs.5,000.00 and the country made pistol and two live cartridges are kept in his house, which were accordingly seized. It is submitted that except this part of the memorandum of the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel, there is no other evidence against the applicant to show that he was ever involved in commission of offence. Even assuming that the applicant had sold the country made pistol and three cartridges to the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel, still then he cannot be charged for offence under Ss. 323/34, 307/34 and 302/34 of IPC. Memorandum of the co-accused which does not lead to discovery of fact, is not admissible under Ss. 25, 26 of the Evidence Act.

(3.) Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. However, it is fairly conceded that except the memorandum of the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel to the effect that he had purchased the country made pistol and three live cartridges from the applicant, there is no other evidence against the applicant to implicate him in commission of offence.