RAJEEV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed, against, the order of 30.8.2016, pronounced by the learned Sessions Judge-II, Mandi, H.P., whereby he proceeded to order, for framing of charge(s) against the accused/petitioner, for his committing offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 120-B IPC.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner herein, has contended with vigour, that, with in the apposite FIR, occurring, no, reference qua the conspiratorial role of the petitioner vis-a-vis the offences committed by the principal accused. Consequently, he submits that it was not appropriate, for the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned, to frame charge against the petitioner, for his holding criminal conspiracy, with the principal accused, for the latters' committing offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 324, 341, 326 read with Section 120-B IPC. However, the aforesaid submission is not accepted, (i) as the role of a conspirator is always hidden besides remains camouflaged, (ii) thereupon when besides when, hence it may not have been possible, for the complainant to be aware qua the conspiratorial role of the accused, in the offence, alleged vis-a-vis the principal accused, more especially, in contemporanety of lodging of the FIR, (iii) rather unfoldment(s) thereof, emanating upon the Investigating Officer, during, his holding investigation(s) making disinterrings thereof, (iv) whereafter, in, his report furnished before the court concerned, his ascribing on anvil, of, evidence collected by him, the penal misdemeanor(s), of, criminal conspiracy(s) vis-a-vis the petitioner herein, (v) thereupon in the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned, bearing in mind the aforesaid report AND his proceeding to order, for, framing of the charge against the petitioner herein, for his committing the offences punishable under Section 307 and 120-B IPC, has hence not committed any apparent illegality or impropriety.

(3.) Furthermore, since the adduction of prosecution evidence has yet to commence, thereupon at this stage, it would not be appropriate, to discern the worth of the evidence collected by the prosecution vis-a-vis the incriminatory role of the petitioner herein, qua his holding criminal conspiracy(s) with the principal accused.