AJAB SINGH WAZIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 08.05.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu is called in question, wherein charges have been ordered to be framed against the petitioners-accused. Petitioner in the revision petition has prayed for quashment of the aforementioned order and requested for treating the same as petition under Section 561-A. The revision against the order of framing of charge is not maintainable, as order framing of charge is interlocutory order and the revision against the same is barred under Section 435(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, revision petition is treated as petition under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. Since similar questions are involved in 561-A No. 167/2012 also, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, both are taken up together for consideration.

(3.) FIR No. 107/2006 under Sections 302/396/201/120-B/109 IPC was registered in Police Station, Trikuta Nagar on the allegations that one Rajinder Bhushan Chopra, his wife Madhu Chopra, his daughter Saloni Chopra, Servant Sonu and Driver Jagan were killed and before killing them their hands and legs were tied. It was also alleged that dead bodies were lying on the floor in a pool of blood and the vehicle JK02 AC-0030 was also taken away. After investigation of the case report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. was filed. Subsequently, series of supplementary challans were filed and the present petitioners were send up for trial by filing of third supplementary challan. Learned trial Judge vide order dated 08.05.2012 ordered for framing of charges against the present petitioners under Sections 302/120-B IPC. It is this order, which is called in question, in both the petitions. Mr. P. N. Raina, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of accused-Trilochan Singh Wazir, submitted that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner, as such, charge could not have been framed against him. Learned counsel submitted that though the occurrence took place in the year 2006, but the statement of prosecution witnesses Surinder Singh @ Kala, Rajinder Singh @ Raju Simblia and Ramesh Kumar alais Raju were recorded in the year 2011 and it is the evidence of these witnesses which has been made basis by learned trial Judge for framing of charges against the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that these persons having not been named as accused persons, their evidence could not be taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge for framing of the charge against the petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that it appears that investigation agency wanted these witnesses to make confessional statements, but before the learned Magistrate they made exculpatory statements. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of Section 10 of Evidence Act, statement of these witnesses could not be considered and relied upon for ordering framing of charges against the petitioner. Learned counsel in support of his contention referred to and relied upon judgment of Honble Supreme Court STATE OF TAMIL NADU V. J JAYALALITHA, 2000 5 SCC 440 and VASA CHANDRASEKHAR RAO V. PONNA SATYANARAYANA, 2000 6 SCC 286 . Learned counsel submitted that evidence of the aforementioned witnesses, being inadmissible in evidence, would not become basis for framing of charges against the petitioner-accused. Learned counsel submitted that the case would require in-depth examination by the court.