BANSHI DHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two revision petitions. Revision - Petition No_2.912000 has been filed by Basant Kumar against the order dated 13 -1 -2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sikar by which he has been charged under Section 302 read with 120 -B and in the alternate for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC while revision petition No. 60/2000 has been preferred by Banshi Dhar and Jagdish against the same order. Therefore, both of them were heard jointly.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 11 -6 -1999 at about 12.00 to 12.30 hours, Shanti Prasad was assaulted by Ramesh Kumar. Khem Chand Mehla, Basant Kumar and Anjani Kumar over mounted on two -motor cycles, and in a jeep No. RJ -23 -C -2824 accused Banshi Dhar; Mahesh Saini and his two son -in -laws were sitting and they were also holding weapons. It were Ramesh Kumar. Anjani Kumar, Basant Kumar and Khem Chand who jointly fired upon the deceased Banshi Dhar and liquidated him. They then chased the informant his uncle Ram Niwas, Manoj Kumar Sharma son of Sagarmal and Manoj Kumar resident of Laxmangarh. This incident was witnessed by. Hemant Kumar, Ram Niwas, Manoj Kumar Sharma son of Sagarmal and Manoj Kumar resident of Laxmangarh. On the basis of this report, FIR was registered and the police after concluding the investigation submitted its report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but investigation was kept pending against Hari Ram and Sher Bahadur, Nepali. The police came to the conclusion that Banshi Dhat in order to take avenge of the killing of his son by deceased party had taken a: vow on the pyre of his deceased son that until he will not avenge the killing of his son he will not sit quietly and in order to give affect to that vow, he contacted Hari Ram and Jagdisn Prasad and all of text hatched a. conspiracy. Banshi Dhar will the help of Jagdish Prasad entered into a contract with Jitendra for the killing of deceased Shanti Prasad for, a consideration of Rs. 1.50 lac and it was settled that the first instalment of Rs. 50,000/ - in be paid before the liquid,ation of the deceased and remaining amount shall be paid thereafter and then Sher Bahadur Nepali and Jitendra visited Sikar on 15 -5 -1999 alongwith Basarit Kumar and went to the shop and house of the deceased and "also saw the deceased Shanti Prasad and as per contract obtained a sum of Rs. 50.000/ - as first installment. On 10 -61999, Jitendra alongwith Sher Bahadur Nepali proceeded on their suzuki motor cycle from Bhiwani and stayed at Sitarain Rest House at Pilani. On 11 -6 - i 999 at 6.00 A.M. both proceeded for Sikar from Pilani and reached Sikar. They waited before Court premises for the opportunity and as soon as deceased Shanti Prasad after attending his Court date was leaving for his house on auto rickshaw, both the accused persons chased him on the motor cycle. Sher Bahadur Nepali stopped his motor cycle and Jitendra fired on the temple of Shanti Prasad and then tried to make their escape good but when the people standing over there made an attempt to nab them. the motor cycle of the accused slipped before the Shop of Choudhry Traders Company and then he sustained an injury but both the accused immediately picked their motor cycle and fir ed a shot in the air -and escaped towards Oak Bungalow.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the story supplied by the informant -complainant party in the FIR was not found to be true. On the contrary, a different 'story was discovered but even then the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges as stated above. It has been submitted that the charges have been framed erroneously and that the same may be quashed. It has been submitted that the order framing charge affects the person's liberty, Therefore, it is the duty of the Courts to consider judicially where the material warrants the framing of charge and the decision of the prosecution should not be blindly accepted, According to the learned counsel for the petitioners it was so held in Muniswamy's case. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners may be discharged.