STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. KHIZAR MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has come up before us on reference made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice in view of the contrary opinions referred in two Single Bench decisions rendered in Shridhar Shastri v. Prakashwati Cri. Misc. Case No. 2194/1980, decided on 16-8-1990, reported in (1990) 2 MPWN 185 by Hon'ble Shri Gulab Gupta, J. as he then was, and the other decision of Hon. Shri D. M. Dharmadhikari, J. passed in Cri. Rev. No. 608/1991 decided on 17-3-1992, reported in (1993) 1 MPWN 186, Vijay Rao v. State of M. P. and the following question has been referred:-"

(2.) Brief facts of the case are - State of Madhya Pradesh preferred a revision against the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind in Crl. Case No. 231 of 1992 whereby a supplementary charge-sheet filed against the non-applicants has been quashed and the accused has been discharged, as the non-applicants were newly added accused persons. The case of the prosecution was thatZebunnisa is the wedded wife of co-accused Chhinga alias Nijamuddin. It is alleged that acid was thrown on her body as a result of which she received acid burns. Her husband and other in laws brought Zebunnisa in unconscious condition for treatment in a Private Nursing Home of non-applicant No. 2, Dr, Vinod Kumar Saxena, where non-applicant No. 3 Rajveer was working as a Compounder. Non-applicant No. 1 is a neighbour of the co-accused Chhinga and is connected with profession of journalism. Zebunnisa remained under treatment for a period of about 15 days.. When she regained consciousness, she told the doctor and the Compounder that acid was thrown on her person by her husband and other members of the family. The doctor asked her to keep mum. After treatment, she was taken by her in-laws in the matrimonial home where she was kept under confinement. Thereafter, on 5-10-88 the mother of injured Zebunnisa came and took her to her parental house from where a written report was sent by Zebunnisa against several persons including the present non-applicants' to the Superintendent of Police, Bhind. On this, a case under Sections 326, 498-A, 120-B and 201, IPC was registered at police station Bhind at Crime No. 26/89, but after investigation the charge-sheet was filed only against five accused persons, namely, Chhinga, the husband of Zebunnisa, Pappu, brother-in-law, father-in-law Pholkhan, Akhtari mother-in-law and Sitara, sister-in-law of the complainant Zebunnisa.

(3.) The trial Court on perusal of documents framed charge under Sections 147, 226/149, 498-A/149 and commenced the trial and recorded statement of Zamil on 25-7-1990. Meanwhile, the police made a further investigation and on its completion filed a supplementary charge-sheet against all the three non-applicants making them as additional accused. The non-applicants raised objection on the filing of supplementary challan against them. The trial Court, after considering the fact that Mst. Zebunnisa has not named these three persons as accused in her statement recorded during investigation on 4-12-90, held that they could not have been added without seeking permission from the Court, discharged the three non-applicants, the newly added accused persons. State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, preferred this revision, Cri. Rev. No. 196 of 1992 against the said order of discharge.