Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 564 (MP)

Sanjay Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2003-04-21

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THROUGH this revision petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have challenged the order dated 17-7-1995 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Criminal Case No. 55/95 framing charges under Sections 431, 342, 323, 506-B, 364, 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against them. ( 2. ) THIS Court while admitting the revision petition on 28-8-95 pleased to stay, trial against Raja Bhaiya alias Bachcha (applicant No. 2 ). During the pendency of this revision the trial proceeded against all the accused except applicant No. 2. The Sessions Court acquitted all the accused vide judgment dated 9-2-1999 including Sanjay Mishra (applicant No. 1 ). Thus, revision filed on behalf of the Sanjay Mishra has rendered infructuous and, therefore, no orders are required to be passed in respect of Sanjay Mishra. This Court is now required to see the validity of the impugned order about applicant No. 2. ( 3. ) HEARD Shri R. P. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Parag Chaturvedi, Advocate for the applicants and Shri S. K. Gangrade, learned Panel Lawyer for the State and perused the records. ( 4. ) THE contentions raised on behalf of the applicant No. 2 is that he has been falsely implicated in the case, his name has not been mentioned in the FIR, no recovery has been made from him and no statement of any witness recorded under Section 164 of Cr. PC lead to implicate him in the commission of the alleged offences. It has been further submitted on behalf of the applicant No. 2 that his name appears in the memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which otherwise is inadmissible in evidence. ( 5. ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State supported the impugned order of the Trial Court. ( 6. ) I have perused the FIR and the case-diary statements of the prosecution witnesses and I find that except mention of the name of this applicant in memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no evidence available on record to justify the impugned order for framing charges against him. ( 7. ( 6. ) I have perused the FIR and the case-diary statements of the prosecution witnesses and I find that except mention of the name of this applicant in memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no evidence available on record to justify the impugned order for framing charges against him. ( 7. ) IT is also pertinent to mention that at the time of framing of the charge, the Counsel for the State who appeared before the Trial Court himself found it difficult to support the case of the prosecution against applicant No. 2 and, therefore, prayed to discharge this accused but the Trial Court framed charges against applicant No. 2. ( 8. ) CONSIDERING the fact that there is no evidence available on record against applicant No. 2 and also that the main accused persons for the alleged offences have already been acquitted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 9-2-1999, in my opinion, there is no point to direct the Sessions Court to proceed trial against the applicant No. 2 as the same would be exercise in futility and, therefore, the impugned order of the Trial Court is set aside, the applicant No. 2 is discharged. The revision stands allowed.