JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. Perused the record of the lower court in extenso. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 25.6.1993 has framed charge for the offence under section 302 IPC against the accused petitioner but he has not given any reason. The impugned order is not at all a speaking order and on this ground alone this revision petition should succeed. 2. On merits also there is no direct evidence connecting the accused petitioner with the crime. On the other hand the evidence collected by the Investigation Officer is inconsistent and contradictory. According to the prosecution case, on 11.3.90 at about 3.25 p.m. when SHO Gopai Singh, Police Station Kotwali Alwar, who was on patrolling duty in the cite to maintain public order on the occasion of `Dulhendi' came near Company Bagh, Alwar, he received a wireless message from the police control room to the effect that in Punjab National Bank gunshots have been fired. Thereupon the said SHO rushed to Punjab National Bank situated on Manu Marg, Alwar. He found constables accused Ramesh Charid and Rameshwar Dayal, who were deputed as Guards there. He enquired from them about the incident. Petitioner Ramesh Chand told him that Budha Ram (Deceased) had taken the rifle from his possession and asked him to go on the bank gate, that thereafter he heard bangs of two gunshots inside the bank building, that thereupon he went inside the bank building and found that Budha Ram was lying injured and blood was oozing out from the left side of his chest. He further informed that Budha Ram was not in a condition to speak and that thereupon he awakened constable-Rameshwer Dayal and also informed about the said incident to the police control room. 3. The medical Jurist who conducted the Medico Legal Autopsy of deceased Budharam on the same day at 5.30 p.m. found following injuries - (1) Small wound on the right side of shoulder 2" below the spinous process of scapula 1 cm. x 11 with inverted margins and clotted blood present. It was the wound of entry. (2) Wound of exit at triangle of neck 4 cm. x 2~ cm. having everted margins and rupture of muscles and blood vessels. On opening the body the doctor found a fracture of Scapula and posterior part of hip. x 11 with inverted margins and clotted blood present. It was the wound of entry. (2) Wound of exit at triangle of neck 4 cm. x 2~ cm. having everted margins and rupture of muscles and blood vessels. On opening the body the doctor found a fracture of Scapula and posterior part of hip. He further noticed a fracture of clavical and 1 st, 2nd and 3rd ribs. The doctor opined that the direction of the wound was from wound of entry to medially, then forward and upward to the wound of exit, in his opinion the death of Budharam was caused due to injury of blood vessels of right side neck, haemorrhagic and shock. The doctor also took out the baniyan and shirt from the dead body, which were blood stained. However he did not mention whether baniyan and shirt bore any holes caused by the bullet. 4. Since as per opinion of the doctor, the entrance wound was from the back side, Gopal Singh SHO concluded that it was not a case of suicide but that of homicide, and as such, lodged a report on the same day at 6.30 p.m. on which case under section 302 IPC was registered. He inspected the place of occurrence and seized the rifle alongwith two empty cartridges. 5. The sealed packet containing baniyan and shirt of the deceased, the packet containing rifle and packets of two live 303 cartridges, one damaged copper jacketed 303 bullet, one piece of copper jacket and other articles were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Dr. RS. Manocha, Assistant Director (Ballistic) vide his report dated 26.3.90 opined that the 303 rifle which was found near the dead body of Budharam was a serviceable fire:arm and that the same had been fired. He further opined that two 303 cartridge cases had been fired from the said rifle and that the damaged copper jacketed bullet had also been fired from the said rifle and that the holes present on wooden Chair and Chadar appeared to have been caused by the copper jacketed projectile. He further opined that two 303 cartridge cases had been fired from the said rifle and that the damaged copper jacketed bullet had also been fired from the said rifle and that the holes present on wooden Chair and Chadar appeared to have been caused by the copper jacketed projectile. He further opined that two holes, marked A/1 & A/2 present on the front and back portion of the deceased's shirt and one hold present on the baniyan had burning, blackening and powder charge particles due to combustion of gun powered on an around the big size hole, on the front portion of the shirt, which indicated that the said hole had been the entrance hold caused by the Jacketed bullet while hole A/2 present on the back portion of the shirt appeared to be the exit hole. Dr. Manocha further opined that the presence of combustion due to gun powder and tearing/splitting effect on the front hole A/1 of the shirt of the deceased indicate that the rifle should have been discharged in contact or near contact with the body. Thus as per report of the ballistic Expert, the gun shot from the said rifle was fired from the front side of the deceased whereas as per post-mortem examination report, the doctor found the entrance wound on the back of the deceased. Thus the medical evidence and the ballistic expert's opinion on this count is clearly in contra distinction with each other and inconsistent. 6. There is no eye-witness of the alleged incident. The Investigation Officer examined only two witnesses namely, Constable Rameshwar Dayal and Seduram, who were assigned duty as bank guards. Rameshwar Dayal in his police statement dated 11.3.90 stated that on the ill fated day his duty was from 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m., that after handing over the charge at 2.00 p.m. to accused petitioner Ramesh Chand, whose duty was form 2.00 to 6.00 p.m.; he had gone to the guard room at about 2.30 p.m. and slept there. Rameshwar Dayal in his police statement dated 11.3.90 stated that on the ill fated day his duty was from 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m., that after handing over the charge at 2.00 p.m. to accused petitioner Ramesh Chand, whose duty was form 2.00 to 6.00 p.m.; he had gone to the guard room at about 2.30 p.m. and slept there. He further stated that on that day accused Ramesh Chand had gone to his house at 7.30 a.m. and returned at 1.50 p.m. and that at that time Head Constable Budharam (deceased) had asked him as to why he did not return to duty at 12.00 noon as was ordered by him earlier, thereupon the accused replied that after taking his meals he had gone to sleep and asserted that he had come on his duty well in time. Rameshwar Dayal further stated that the deceased asked the accused to put on his uniform and discharge his duties and that thereupon the accused after loading the rifle had gone towards the double lock of the bank. This witness further stated that on the same day at about 3.20 or 3.30 p.m. accused Ramesh awakened him and told that Budharam had fired and that the accused also informed him that Budharam had taken the rifle from him. Rameshwar Dayal also stated that thereafter he had informed about the said incident to the Rl Police Lines. This witness therefore does not connect the accused with the crime. 7. Constable-Seduram in his statement under section 161 Cr.PC stated that on the day of incident his duty was 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m., that he had handed over the charge to Constable-Rameshwar Dayal at 10.00 a.m., that the third shift of duty was that of accused Ramesh Chand from 2.00 p.m. and that when he had left for his house for taking his meals the accused had not come to the bank. He told that on that day at about 3.45 p.m., when he came back to the bank, accused Ramesh, who was on sentry duty had opened the doors of the gate, that at that time Head Constable Budharam (deceased) had asked him (Seduram) as to where had he been, that he informed him that he had gone to take his meals and that thereupon the deceased asked him to go away. Seduram further stated that he did not hear the sound of gun shots. There is no other evidence. 8. It may be mentioned here that the Investigation Officer has not cared to find out as to whether there were any chance-prints on the barrel of the Crime rifle. There is not a fringe of evidence to suggest that the barrel of the said rifle bore finger prints of the accused petitioner. From the evidence collected by the Investigation Officer, it is abundantly apparent that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence, even to prima facie establish that the accused petitioner had fired gun shots on Head Constable-Budharam and committed his murder. On the other hand the post-mortem report and the Ballistic Expert's Report are inconsistent and contradictory. Thus the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section-302 IPC have not been even prima facie made out against the accused petitioner. 9. The learned Sessions Judge has not cared to carefully scan and examine the evidence collected in this case by the Investigation Officer and he has simply ordered for framing charge for the offence under section 302 IPC against the petitioner ignoring provisions of Section-227 Cr.PC. He has thus committed grave illegality and error in exercise of his jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 10. The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 25.6.1993 is set aside and the accused petitioner Ramesh Chand is hereby discharged of the offence under section 302 IPC. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. *******