RAMCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are taking exceptions to the charge which has been framed against them by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in Sessions Trial No. 108/90. By the charge applicant Kalu Sb Gopal has been charged for an offence punishable u/s 307 simplicitor. However, applicants 1 & 2 namely Ramchandra Sb Shrilal and Kesharsingh Sb Kaniram have been charged for committing an offence punishable u/s. 307, 326 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

(2.) Shri A.S Kutumble, counsel for the petitioners argued that the F.I.R. and the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, are abundantly taking it clear that the intention of the applicants was to commit an offence u/s 326 of I.P.C either simplicitor or read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. There was absolutely no need of framing of charge against the petitioners for an offence punishable u/s 307 of I.P.C. He made reference to F.I.R. and statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation for substantiating his arguments. Countering to that, Shri K.K. Gupta learned Govt. Advocare submitted that the charge for offence punishable u/s 307 either simplicitor or nw 34 I.P.C, is justified by material on record. He pointed out that in the F.I.R. the victim has made a statement that had he not been released by the prosecution witnesses, the appellants would have murdered him.

(3.) In view of the arguments advanced before me, the F.I.R. and the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation have been carefully examined.