O. R. JAIN, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 17th December, 1997 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Ses sions Trial No. 876 of 1997, State of U. P. v. Mahendra and another. By the said judg ment the learned Sessions Judge has ac quitted accused Mehandra and Yakoob of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. 2. The main ground in this revision against acquittal is that the learned Ses sions Judge rushed through the trial and after recording the evidence of only four witnesses, out of a list of twenty-one wit nesses, the order of acquittal was passed. The trial opened on 28th August, 1997 when the charge was framed against the accused and the order of acquittal was passed on 17th December, 1997, i. e. within less than four months. As will be shown presently, it is a classic case of "justice hurried is justice buried". 3. The prosecution story may be stated briefly in the words of learned Ses sions Judge (Sri M. A. Khan) as under: "on 22-3-1997 at 8. 30 a. m. complainant Lala alias Sakat Singh s/o Risal, r/o vill. Nala, P. S. Kandhla, Distt. Muzaffarnagar lodged a written report (Ext. Ka i) at P. S. Kandhla alleg ing that his sons wife Smt. Rakesh was a woman of loose character. On 22-3-1997 she was sleep ing on the first floor with her son Subhash. There was the light of electricity. At about 3 Oclock in the night about four persons came at the first floor of his house and tried to molest with Smt. Rakesh wife of Rukam Singh. At the same moment Subhash awakened and he made cries. Smt. Rakesh also made protest. At this two of the miscreants gave Palkati blows on the body and neck of Smt. Rakesh and on the hand of Subhash. Hearing the hue and cry, the com plainant, Raj Pal s/o Kali Ram and Kali Ram s/o Prabhu and many others reached there and saw that Mehandra son of Ram Chand and Yakoob s/o Pheru Teli, armed with Palkati were commit ting Marpeet. Smt. Rakesh breathed her last at the spot. The accused ran away seeing them. Subhash was taken to Shamli for medical aid. It is also mentioned in Ext. Ka 1 that they can identify the two unknown miscreants if brought before them. Smt. Rakesh breathed her last at the spot. The accused ran away seeing them. Subhash was taken to Shamli for medical aid. It is also mentioned in Ext. Ka 1 that they can identify the two unknown miscreants if brought before them. On the basis of this written report (Ext Ka 1), Chik report (Ext. Ka 2) was prepared and the case was registered in Crime No. 102 of 1997, under Sections 302/324 of the Indian Penal Code and the investigation was entrusted to S. I. Sri R. P. Singh, and an entry in the G. D. was made. The Investigating Officer reached the scene of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the Panchyatnama (Ext Ka 3) Photo Lash (Ext. Ka 4) ; letter to Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffar nagar (Ext. Ka 5), letter to R. I. (Ext. Ka 6); and Challan Lash (Ext Ka 8) Ext. Ka 7 is the copy of FIR. The Investigating Officer also prepared the site-plan (Ext. Ka 12) of the place from where on the pointing out of accused Yakoob, Palkati, an arm used in the commission of the crime, was recovered and also prepared the sire plan (Ext Ka 13) of the place where this incident took place. The Investigating Officer also took in possession the bloodstained and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared its Ford, (Ext Ka 11) in presence of witnesses Lokesh and Bhanwar Singh. " 4. The dead-body of Smt. Rakesh was sent to District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar for post-mortem examination, where Dr. Vishnu Dutt, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Smt. Rakesh on 22-3-1997at 3p. m. The age of the deceased was about 32 years and about half a day had passed at the time of post-mortem since the death. Rigor Mortis was found all over the body and there was no decomposition. Eighteen in cised wounds were found by the doctor as an te-mortem injuries. Thus it was a ghastly murder. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The post mortem examination report is Ext. Ka 9 on record. 5. On 30-3-1997 on the information of a Mukhbir accused Yakoob was arrested by the police from his house and was inter rogated. He narranted a detailed story land confessed his guilt. The post mortem examination report is Ext. Ka 9 on record. 5. On 30-3-1997 on the information of a Mukhbir accused Yakoob was arrested by the police from his house and was inter rogated. He narranted a detailed story land confessed his guilt. He stated that he and accused Mahendar had illicit relations with Smt. Rakesh and on the point of supply of milk there was exchange of hot words between Smt. Rakesh and them. To take revenge of that insult the accused with two other companions committed this heinous crime and when Subhash ob jected, he was also given Palkati blow on his hand by accused Mahendra. When their companions tried to molest with Smt. Rakesh, she became annoyed and hurled abuses and so accused Mahendra gave many Palkati blows on her body and neck, that after committing this brutal murder accused Mahendra handed over the Palkati to this accused for hinding it and he stated that he can get recovered that Palkati and then the Investigating Of ficer on the pointing out of accused Yakoob recovered the Palkati the arm used in the commission of this crime, and prepared its Fard (Ext. Ka-10) in presence of witnesses Sewa Ram and Ram Pal. 6. The investigation of this case was transferred two three times. Accused Mahendra could not be arrested nor he surrendered in Court and so steps for proceedings under Section 82, Cr. PC. were taken. Then on 23-5-1997 he sur rendered in Court and was taken into judi cial custody and was sent to Jail. " 7. I have heard Mr. S. S. Malik, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Mr. PC. Srivastava learned Counsel for the accused and AGA for the State and have gone through the record of the Court of Sessions. 8. The first thing which attracts atten tion in this case is that in the committal order passed by the CJM, Muzaffarnagar it was specifically mentioned thatpnma facie case under Section 302 and 326, IPC is made out against the accused. But the learned Sessions Judge did not frame a charge under Section 326, IPC and framed charges against the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC only. 9. But the learned Sessions Judge did not frame a charge under Section 326, IPC and framed charges against the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC only. 9. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused that the injury report of Subhash is not available on record and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge did not frame a charge under Section 326, IPC. A perusal of the record shows that a copy of the injury report has been filed alongwith the revision and is Annexure 4 to the memo of revision. In the case diary it is mentioned that Subhash was admitted in Bohra Nursing Home at Shamli. It is fur ther mentioned in the case diary that the left hand of Subhash was severed near the wrist joint. In fact the learned Sessions Judge himself was conscious of the fact that Subhash received a grievous injury in this incident. It has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in the judgment as under: "as Subhash was given a serious Palkati blow and his left hand was completely cut from the elbow joint, the case was converted into one under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code from under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. After completing necessary formalities and investigation, the Investigating Officer sub mitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka 16) against ac cused Mehandra and Yakoob under Sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. " 10. Therefore, there was no apparent reason for the omission to frame a charge under Section 326, IPC and it shows that the learned Sessions Judge (Sri M. A. Khan) did not deal with the case with due care. 11. As stated above, the prosecution examined four witnesses, namely, Kali Ram (PW 1) Raj Pal (PW 2), Sewa Ram (PW 3) and Ram Pal (PW 4 ). Witnesses Kali Ram and Raj Pal were examined on 18- 11-1997 and the remaining two wit nesses Sewa Ram and Ram Pal were ex amined on 10th December, 1997. All these witnesses turned hostile. Kali Ram and Raj Pal were witnesses of fact and PW 3 Sewa Ram and Pw 4 Ram Pal were wit nesses of recovery of Palkati at the instance of accused Yakoob. All these witnesses turned hostile. Kali Ram and Raj Pal were witnesses of fact and PW 3 Sewa Ram and Pw 4 Ram Pal were wit nesses of recovery of Palkati at the instance of accused Yakoob. After the evidence of these four witnesses was recorded, the ADGC (Criminal) Sri Raunaqali Zaidi moved an application on 10th December, 1997 that the remaining witnesses includ ing Subhash should be summoned by issu ing a non-bailable warrant against them. It does not appear from the record that any summon was served on Subhash and he failed to attend that Court. Yet the learned ADGC (Criminal) prayed for issuing of a non-bailable warrant against him and the learned Sessions Judge in a routine man ner allowed the application and issued non-bailable warrant against Subhash who is the injured person and who had received grievous injury in this incident and who is the present revisionist. 12. On 17th December, 1997, the ADGC (Criminal) Sri Raunaq Ali Zaidi filed another application in which it was stated that in this case only two witnesses remained to be examined and a report has been received from the Police Station that witness Lala alias Sakat Singh has died and that the whereabouts of Subhash could not ascertained as he has disap peared from his house. Sri Raunaq Ali Zaidi, ADGC (Criminal) prayed that the remaining witnesses should be discharged. Alongwith this application Sri Zaidi sub mitted a report from the Police Station in which it is stated that Lala alias Sakat Singh has been murdered on 10-7-1997 and Case No. 199 of 1997 under Section 304, IPC has been registered in respect of the same. It was also mentioned in the police report submitted by ADGC (Criminal) to the Court that Subhash could not be traced and has gone out of station. If further says that his address is not known and he is out of station for a long time. 13. On this report being filed by Sri Raunaq Ali Zaidi ADGC (Criminal), the court discharged all the remaining wit nesses and the prosecution closed its case. On the same day the Court recorded an order that as there is no circumstance against the accused, their statements under Section 313, Cr. P. C. need not be recorded and the judgment of acquittal was passed on the same day. 14. On the same day the Court recorded an order that as there is no circumstance against the accused, their statements under Section 313, Cr. P. C. need not be recorded and the judgment of acquittal was passed on the same day. 14. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to record the statements of the Investigating Officer who had recovered the Palkati from the accused Yakoob. It is true that the Motabir witnesses of the recovery of Palkati had turned hostile, but the recovery can be proved by the person who made the recovery. The learned Sessions Judge did not attach any importance to the fact that witness Lala who was reported to have been murdered is the same person who had lodged the FIR. 15. In the opinion of this Court the learned Sessions Judge completely abdi cated his function when he accepted the report submitted by ADGC (Criminal) at its face value. Had the learned Sessions Judge taken slightest trouble, it would have realized that there is something fishy and the alleged disappearance of the star witness of the prosecution is highly suspi cious. In fact it appears that the issuing of non-bailable warrant against Subhash, a boy of thirteen years of age, was calculated to terrorise him so that he may not appear as a witness during the trial. It has already been stated above that there was absolute ly no justification for issuing a non-bail able warrant against Subhash because no summon was ever served on him. 16. The revision has been filed with an affidavit of one Balwan who is the elder brother of Subhash. It is stated in the af fidavit that his younger brother Subhash aged 13 years received injuries in this inci dent and after the murder of his mother, his grand-father (Lala) was also mur dered. It is further stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit that the State Counsel con spired with the accused to give them under advantage and it is further stated in para graph 7 of the affidavit that the State Counsel moved the application dated 17-12-1997 with mala fide and evil intention and sought discharge of the witness Sub- hash on absolutely fictitious grounds. 17. 17. After a perusal of the record, it appears to this Court that the allegations made by the person swearing the affidavit against Sri Raunaq Ali Zaidi ADGC (Criminal) is not without basis. The learned ADGC (Criminal) has acted in a most unusal manner and was instrumental in getting hasty orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 18. To sum up, the record shows that the trial has been conducted by the learned Sessions Judge (Sri M. A. Khan) in a very hasty manner and he allowed himself to be led by ADGC (Criminal ). The result has been afailure of justice. 19. In view of the above discussion, the revision is allowed and the judgment of Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar dated 17th December, 1997 in S. T. No. 876 of 1997, State v. Mahendra and Yakoob is set aside. The case is relanded to the learned Ses sions Judge with the direction to try the case de novo and to complete the trial as early as possible preferably within six months. 20. Accused Mahendra and Yakoob are directed through their Counsel to ap pear before the Court of Sessions at Muzaffarnagar on 1st of July, 1998. The revisionist is also directed through his Counsel to appear before the Court of Sessions on 1st of July, 1998 so that a date may be fixed for his evidence in his presence. In case accused Mahendra and Yakoob fail to appear before the Court on 1st July, 1998, their presence will be secured by issuing non-bailable warrants and notices will also be issued to the sureties to produce the accused. 21. The office of this Court is directed to send the record to Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar within two weeks positive ly. Revision allowed. .