LASSA SHEIKH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LASEA Sheikh and Shiv Nath the petitioners were proceeded against in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadarwah by the Police Thana Gandoh under Section 302/34, R. P. C.-The learned Committing Magistrate by his order dated 11 12. 1968 discharged both the accused on the ground that there was no evidence to connect the accused with the guilt and there was thus no prima facie case made out against them. Aggrieved by this the State filed a revision petition before the Session Judge Bhadarwah. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 7-10-1969 set aside the order of discharge and directed the committing court to frame charges against the accused under the appropriate section. The accused petitioners have come up in revision before this Court.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the State and have also gone through the file.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioners that there was absolutely no evidence against them. Not to speak of any direct evidence forthcoming in the case there was even no circumstantial evidence worth the name to connect the accused with the alleged act of murder of the deceased. The medical evidence did not say as to how the deceased had sustained injuries and this kind of evidence could not be made basis for holding that the deceased had been done to death. In fact the important limbs of the body especially the head were missing and it could not therefore be said with any amount of certainty that the body belonged to the said deceased. Again, mere pointed out of certain articles by the accused which led to the seizure of the same at their instance could not constitute incriminating evidence against them. It is, therefore, submitted that the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was correct and the learned Sessions Judge had illegally exercised his jurisdiction by ordering the committal of the accused. As against this it is submitted by the counsel for the State that there was prima facie evidence extant on the record against the accused and as such the committing Magistrate should have proceeded to frame charges against them under the appropriate section and should not have discharged them on the ground that there was absolutely no evidence against them. The order of the learned Sessions Judge in interfering with the order of discharge was therefore correct.