RINKU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) PRESENT revision is directed against the order dated 1.10.2013 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in S.T. No. 43/2012, framing charge under Sections 307/34, 394, 397/398, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC against the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that except memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, no evidence has been collected in the charge sheet to show the involvement of the petitioner in the incident. Aforesaid memorandum is not reliable piece of evidence because it is not admissible in evidence. In test identification parade also witnesses failed to identify the petitioner. Petitioner has been implicated on the basis of recovery of looted bike alone.