STATE Vs. S SHEETAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition which is directed against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Srinagar recorded on 9-10-1996 in a case titled as "State v. S. Sheetal Singh" whereby he came to discharge the accused, stems out of the following circumstances.

(2.) On 8-10-1994 Dr. Inderjeet Singh came to lodge a written report before S.H.O. Kothibagh Srinagar alleging therein that on 8-10-1994 at 12-30 p.m. he was getting his car washed outside Maghaldarbar, suddenly Mr. Sheetal Singh an ex-army officer got down from his jypsy, security vehicle along with four gunmen started beating him and pulled off his hair and beard and also asked one of the gunmen to hand-oner the rifle so that he will shoot him. Said Sheetal Singh also directed the said gunmen to note the number of his vehicle so that he can get him eliminated. Several people assembled on spot as a result of which said Sheetal Singh managed his escape by the said Jypsy. He has further alleged that few days back, the accused has sent some boys to his residence for threatening the complainant and also he had been threatening his relatives on telephone. Pursuant to this report the police Kothibagh came to register a case for offence under S. 307, RPC under FIR No. 166/94 and proceeded with the investigation of the case. After usual investigation the investigating agency found the accused guilty of offence u/S. 307, RPC, challaned the accused-respodnent Sheetal Singh before the Court of learned Forest Magistrate, Srinagar who in his turn came to commit the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Srinagar. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the P.P. and the learned defence counsel and after examination of the entire documents referred to in under S. 173, Cr. P.C. on the record of the case came to discharge the accused by virtue of his order dated 8-10-1996.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order the State came up in revision before this Court. It is maintained in the motion of revision that the impugned order is illegal and has been passed in abuse of the judicial powers as the learned Sessions Judge has sifted the evidence collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation, which under law he could not do.