SATTU @ SATYANARAYAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition under Section 397 r/w 301 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, for framing charges under Section 302 of the IPC in the alternative u/S 302 r/w 120 B, 307 of the IPC in the alternative u/S 307 r/w 120 B of the IPC.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently stressed the fact that the petitioners were neither mentioned in the FIR nor in the dying declaration by the deceased Inder Sonkar and there was not an iota of evidence available on record which implicated the present petitioners merely on the basis of statements of certain witnesses that the petitioners were standing on the bridge at the place of the incident would not be evidence to implicate them. Moreover, Counsel urged that there are a lot of material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the petitioners had not done anything in the participation of the offence as being alleged by the prosecution. The memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of the accused was not admissible in offence and the gun was recovered from the petitioner No.1 Satty @ Satyanarayan would also be of no help to the prosecution. Counsel further submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on the speculations and surmises. Moreover, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness in the incident. Counsel for the petitioners has brought notice to this Court that the witnesses have turned hostile in Court and not supported the prosecution story. Hence, Counsel prayed the impugned order framing charge be set aside.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners were fully implicated in the matter and the revision is delayed and the trial is underway. Moreover, Counsel submitted that seven witnesses have already been examined and the gun was recovered from the petitioner No.1 Sattu @ Satyanarayan and gun shot injury has been sustained by the deceased. In this light also the petitioners were not entitled to get any relief. Moreover, Counsel submitted that there are three other cases registered against the petitioner Sattu and out of these three cases, one case is also under Arms Act. Hence, Counsel submitted that the petitioners do not deserve any sympathy and prayed for dismissal of the petition.