CHHETU Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mrs. Sindhu Sharma. Advocate for the petitioners as well as Mr. Sanjay Kakkar, Govt. Advocate, for the State,in extenso.

(2.) THROUGH the currency of this revision, petitioners, Chhetu and Mahantoo. seek the reversal of the orders dated: 20 -11 -2001,12 -12 -2001 and dated: 19 -01 -2002, and quashment of the charge framed against them for offence under Sections 302/34 RPC in case for FIR No. 122/1993 entitled State Vs. Chandu and others.

(3.) FACTS relevant from the disposal of this revision in resuming may be noticed. On a report lodged by Bachetru. Sheebu and Lal Chand on 18 -09 -1989 to the effect that they had seen the dead bodies of Kamlu and Kaki in a pool of blood with injuries alleged caused by sharp edged weapon, lead to the registration of a case under Sections 302/34 RPC, Police swang into action. On conclusion of the investigation, challan came to be presented before Chief Judicial Magistrate. Udhampur on 18 -12 -1993 against Chand Ram and Ors. under Section 302 RPC. A prayer was also made for initiating proceedings under Section 512 Cr. PC. The Committal Court, after recording the statement of the process server to the effect that the accused could not be traced despite search, proceeded under Section 512 Cr. PC. and directed the police to apprehend the accused and cause the appearance of the accused in the court for further proceedings. However, the challan against the rest of the accused was committed to the court of Sessions vide order dated: 18 -12 -1993 for offence under Section 302/34 Cr. P.C. for trial. Additional Sessions Judge. Reasi, after hearing the parties and scanning the material on record, framed the charge under Section 302 RFC read with Section 34 RPC against accused, namely. Mangtu. Mahantoo, Chand Ram and Raghu Ram, vide his order dated: 02 -11 -1994 and fixed the calendar for recording the prosecution evidence. During the currency of the trial, Mahantoo accused became absent and absconded on account of which proceedings under Section 512 Cr. PC. came to be initiated against Mahantoo accused vide Court order dated: 08 -12 -1995 and the general warrant of arrest issued. The trial, however, against other accused, namely. Chandu Ram and Raghu Ram. continued and the Trial court after recording the evidence of the witnesses found that both these accused are not at. all connected with the commission of the offence on the basis of the evidence appearing on record and that it would be an exercise in futility to proceed further with the trial any more, closed the evidence and acquitted the accused in relying upon the judgment reported in Crime 1996 -111 page 85 vide its ordcrdated: 26 -12 -1996. Noorder was, however, passed with regard to the two other absconding accused, namely. Chhetu and Mahantoo. against whom proceedings under Section 512 Cr. RC. have been taken and general warrants have been issued.