HANIF KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that against the present petitioners a challen was filed and they were committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges u/ss. 147, 302/149,323/149,336 and 325/149, IPC against the present petitioners which have been challenged by this petition:

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the names of petitioners Hanif and Iqbal have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. but were mentioned in the Police statements. He further submits that on the day of incident both these petitioners Hanif and Iqbal were not present on the spot and in the field as well. Soon the basis of alibi the order of framing charge against these two petitioners be quashed. In support of this plea a certificte of the hospital has been produced. Similarly, charge against Ahmed has been challenged on the ground that he was also not present at the scene of incident and in support of this plea certain documents have been filed. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the names of Hanif and Iqbal are not there in the F.I.R. but their names have been mentioned in the Police statements, which have been recorded subsequently.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions referred the case of Dinesh Singh v. State of Raj: In this case it was held that there is no evidence to say that there was meeting regarding conspiracy. All the three petitioners were therefore, discharged for the offence u/s. 120-B, IPC but charge against petitioner No. 1 u/s 302, IPC was maintained but the petitioners No.2 and 3 in that case were discharged. He also placed reliance on the case reported in 1986 Supreme Court 20462, 1985 Supreme Court 1124, and 1977 Supreme Court 1489 and 1972 Supreme Court 5455