ANITA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the accused persons is directed against the order dated 5.2.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 355/03 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, whereby charge for an offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against them.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Moolchand Pateriya was murdered by the accused persons, namely, Lakhanlal, Murari Pandey and Lallu on the intervening night of 19/20.7.2003 in the house of Lakhanlal. His body was thereafter dragged by them upto a nearby railway track where it was left. They also looted Rs.11,66,068/- from a cash box of which deceased Moolchand Pateriya was in-charge. During investigation, the police recovered Rs. 11,00,000/-alongwith blood-stained clothes of deceased Moolchand Pateriya from Lakhanlal. Blood-stains were also found in his house. Applicant No. 1 Anita had washed the blood-stained clothes of her accused husband Lakhanlal on the next morning to cause disappearance of the evidence against him. Lakhanlal had gone to the house of co-accused Murari Pandey on the evening of 20.7.2003 and after waiting for him there for sometime, he gave the shirt of his uniform, belt and cap to his wife Anju Pandey, applicant No. 2 for keeping them. These articles were recovered from her by the police on her memorandum.

(3.) AS regards applicant No. 2 Anju Pandey, he strenuously argued that I there is absolutely no evidence in the charge-sheet against her for framing a charge under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He also asserted that the trial Court mechanically framed the charge against her on the ground that she had washed the blood-stained clothes of Lakhanlal which was not even the case of prosecution against her.