ATUL SEHGAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE diary is available.

(2.) WITH the consent of both the parties the matter is being heard finally on the question of admission.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant/accused submits that earlier the police had registered a case against the applicant/accused who was arrested by the police also. After investigation a report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the police before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal to the effect that there was no sufficient evidence against the applicant/accused for filing the charge -sheet under the said offences. The said report was accepted by the Court vide order dated 25 -06 -2012. On the same evidence the cognizance has been taken by the trial Court vide the impugned order dated 28 -08 -2014 under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. holding that prima -facie there is sufficient evidence against the applicant/accused, who is the son of the deceased K.L. Sahgal and the applicant/accused was in the deceased's house when the alleged incident took place on 09 -04 -2012. Learned counsel inviting the attention of the statement of Benu Khetrapal (PW -2), the daughter of the deceased has contended that on the basis of the statement of Benu Khetrapal (PW -2) it cannot be inferred that the applicant/accused was involved in the murder of his father K.L. Sahgal though his death was found to be of homicidal in nature in the Post -Mortem report in which it has been stated that the deceased was strangulated. Learned counsel further contends that the statements of twelve witnesses have been got recorded before the trial Court. If the said evidence is considered, there is no evidence on record against the applicant/accused to connect him with the murder of the deceased. Learned Senior counsel heavily placing reliance upon the judgments in the case of Michael Machado and another vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another : 2000 (3) SCC 262, Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab and others : AIR 2014 SC 1400 and Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and Another vs State of Gujarat and others : 2014 (5) SCC 568 has strenuously argued that a cognizance for an offence can be taken by a Court against an accused only in a case in which the accused has not been charge -sheeted by the police for trial if a sufficient evidence has been found against him prima -facie to connect him with the offence. Merely on the basis of suspicion an accused cannot be roped in the case. Counsel further pleads that the learned trial Court has committed an error in taking cognizance against the applicant/accused for the aforesaid offences whereas there is no sufficient evidence against him.