AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Amar Singh aggrieved by the order for framing charge u/s.302/34, 307/34 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Shri Anil Upman, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that all four injured witnesses in their statements have not stated about the presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence and in fact one of the injured Shiv Singh has stated that he did not see the petitioner in village on that day. The other statements are those of Narendra, Sugar Singh and Ram Dhakeli.

(3.) Shri Anil Upman, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgement of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., AIR 1979 SC 366 and argued that if two views are possible on the evidence of the prosecution, then the one which is favourable to the accused should be preferred at the stage of framing charge. It was argued that mere suspicion cannot be a basis for framing of charge. Even if the licenced gun of the accused-petitioner has been used by his son, he cannot thereby be made an accused for offence u/s.302 of IPC or 307 with the aid of Section 34. There is no evidence of premeditation and pre-meeting of minds. Consideration for common intention envisaged in Section 34 are materially different from those of Section 149 of IPC where mere presence can be basis for framing of charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the only charge that can be framed against petitioner is one for offence u/s.30 of the Arms Act for the reason that his licenced gun was alleged to have been used by his son and no other charge can be framed.