ISMAIL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition against the order dated 1 -6 -1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sikar in Sessions Case No. 33/97 by which charges against the petitioners have been framed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant.

(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no whisper in the parch a bayan of Chand Khan that 7 or 8 persons who are alleged to have taken part in incident had committed any offence. It has further been submitted that the distance between the two places is about 2 kms. and hence they are two separate incidents. He submitted that separate cases should have been registered for the different incidents. He also submitted that no case punishable under Sections 307, 148, 325/149, 326/149 and 307/149 IPC is made out in the facts and circumstances of this case and charges in the present case should be quashed. So the basic argument is that two incidents are separate and the petitioners should not have been charged for the offences by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khivsingh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan1 has been relied upon in which it was held that two distinct offences committed by the sets of accused should be tried separately. Sanwal Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan2 has been relied upon in which it was held that when two incidents took place at different places at two different times they could not be said to have been committed in the course of same transaction and hence accused persons could not be charged and tried jointly. It has also been submitted that offences as alleged by the prosecution are not made out and the petitioners should be discharged. Reliance has also been placed on Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr3 and State of 'Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal Soni4. 1. WLN (DC) 1978 page 316. 2. 1995 Cr. L.J. 3549. 3. 1996 Cr. L.R. (SC) 505. 4. AIR2000 SC 2583.