CENTRAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION Vs. SOHAN LAL BISHNOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Sessions Case No. 97/2011, the Special Judge,Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur, in relation to FIR No. 383/2011 dated 5.9.2011 registered at Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur has discharged accused Parasram from the charges of Sections 120B, 364 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989') and he has been ordered to be charged only under Section 202 IPC. Similarly, accused Om Prakash has also been discharged by that court from the charges of Sections 120B, 364 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 and he has also been ordered to be charged only under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code while other thirteen accused persons,namely, (1) Sohan Lal, (2) Sahi Ram, (3) Mahipal , (4) Malkhan Singh, (5) Kumbha Ram, (6) Umesha Ram, (7) Reshma Ram, (8) Pukhraj, (9) Dinesh, (10) Bishna Ram, (11) Kailash, (12) Ashok and (13) Shahabuddin have been ordered to be charged by the said court under Section 302/120B IPC, 364/120B IPC, 201 IPC and 120B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 and the sixteenth accused Amar Chand, who himself was of Scheduled Caste, was ordered to be charged only under Section 120B and 364/120 -B IPC.

(2.) IN S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1022/2012, which has been filed by Central Bureau of Investigation(for short 'CBI'), it has been prayed that (1) accused Paras Ram and (2) Om Prakash should also be ordered to be charged for the offences from which they have been discharged by the trial court and it has also been prayed that the charge of Section 201 IPC should also be ordered to be framed against accused Paras Ram in place of charge of Section 202 IPC. It has also been prayed that the charge framed as such against all the accused -persons should be re -framed because there are so many errors and omissions in the charges framed against the accused -persons. Accused persons have prayed for complete discharge in their respective petitions.

(3.) FOLLOWING criminal revision petitions have also been filed by different accused -persons with a prayer to discharge them from almost all the charges for which they have been charged: (1) S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No. 878/2012 - Dinesh & anr. v. The State of Rajasthan, (2) S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No. 1023/2013 - Amar Chand v. Union of India, (3) S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.52/2013 - Sahil Pemawat v. the State of Rajasthan, (4) S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No. 120/2013 - Malkhan Singh v. CBI, (5) S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.275/2013 - Reshma Ram v. CBI, (6) S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.637/2013 - Vishna Ram & ors. v. Union of India. Out of these six above mentioned criminal revision petition, S.B.Cr.Revision Petition No.120/2013 titled as Malkhan Singh v. CBI has been separated from the present bunch of files because in the order -sheet dated 18.12.2013, I had mentioned that in all these matters, opportunities to argue the case to the accused - persons/litigants have been given on more than a dozen times but still some of the accused are not satisfied with their performance during their arguments and the matter is being argued at disproportionate length since 9.1.2013 and so, after writing a detailed order on 17.1.2014, I had asked the learned Advocates for the accused Malkhan Singh to argue his matter before another Bench in which he had prayed for discharge from almost all the charges which were framed against him. Now that file is said to be pending before regular Bench hearing the criminal revision petitions. Present order will not affect the merits of that petition.