STATE OF H P Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sections 397, 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as 'the Code') has been preferred by the State (hereafter referred to as 'the petitioner') against the order dated 24.12.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, in Sessions Case No. 21/2001, under Sections 302, 120-B, 211 and 201 IPC, whereby the trial Court had declined to frame a charge against the respondent accused (hereafter referred to as the accused') for the commission of offence under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, but has framed a charge only under Section 201 IPC.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that on the bass of FIR No. 331, dated 17.12.2000, registered at Police Station, Palampur, the investigating agency carried investigation into the alleged murder of one Santosh Kumar (hereafter referred to as 'the deceased') and after conclusion of the investigation, submitted a charge sheet under Sections 302, 120-B, 211 and 201 IPC, alleging therein that in view of the material collected during investigation, accused Munish Kumar, Rattan Lal and Ramesh Chand had committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201 WC, Ravi Kumar had committed offences punishable under Section 201 and 120-B IPC, whereas accused Ashok Kumar had committed offences punishable under Sections 201, 120-B and 211 IPC. The accused and aforesaid person (hereafter referred to as 'the accused') are alleged to have entered into a conspiracy to cause murder of the deceased, and destroyed the evidence in the case and co-accused Ashok Kumar lodged a false FIR with a view to conceal the commission of the murder of the deceased by the accused and his co-accused.

(3.) After hearing the parties and considering the material on record under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, held that there was no material to frame charge against the accused, except under Section 201 IPC, whereas he found that there were grounds to proceed against his co-accused as per the submissions in the charge sheet. Being aggrieved by implicit discharge of the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, the State has preferred the present petition.