Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2004 DIGILAW 1261 (SC)

State Of M. P. v. RAKESH

2004-09-20

D.M.DHARMADHIKARI, Y.K.SABHARWAL

body2004
ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 30 OF 2002, THE COURT OF SESSION, AFTER HEARING COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES ON THE QUESTION OF CHARGE, BY ORDER DATED 24-5-2002, FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT CHARGES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 109 AND SECTION 302 READ WITH SECTIONS 392, 109/111 AND SECTIONS 307, 109, 394 READ WITH SECTION 397 IPC. AS AGAINST ANOTHER ACCUSED PRAMOD KUMAR @ PAMMI, CHARGES WERE FRAMED FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 411 IPC AND SECTION 25(L)(B)(L) OF THE ARMS ACT. THE APPLICATION OF THE PROSECUTION FILED UNDER SECTION 216 CRPC WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE COURT OF SESSION ON 24-9-2002. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS DATED 24-5-2002 AND 24-9-2002. 3. A PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC WAS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT STATING THAT SINCE ACCUSED PRAMOD KUMAR @ PAMMI HAD BEEN CHARGED FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 411 AND THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED RESPONDENT BEING SIMILAR, THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE CHARGED ONLY FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 411 IPC. THAT PETITION HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE HIGH COURT BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE SESSIONS JUDGE HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO PROSECUTE THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT ONLY FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 411 IPC AND THE REMAINING CHARGES HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO BE DROPPED. THE STATE IS IN APPEAL. 4. IT DESERVES TO BE NOTICED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT ON 30-1-2003 WHEREAS THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE WAS CLOSED ON 16-1-2003. FROM THE ORDER DATED 24-5-2002, IT APPEARS EVIDENT THAT, ACCORDING TO THE PROSECUTION, THE CONSPIRATOR OF THE PLAN TO MURDER AND ROB THE DECEASED WAS THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT. THE PROSECUTION CASE IS THAT THE PLAN MADE BY THE RESPONDENT WAS EXECUTED BY THE PERSONS NAMED IN PARA 6 OF THE ORDER DATED 24-5-2002 WHICH ALSO NOTICES THAT THE THREE ROBBERS HAD GIVEN THE ENTIRE LOOTED AMOUNT TO THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT. 5. AT THIS STAGE, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE MERITS OR DEMERITS OF THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION OR THE DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT. SO ALSO, WHEN THE HIGH COURT WAS CONSIDERING A PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC, IT COULD NOT DELVE INTO MERITS AND QUASH THE CHARGES BY A CRYPTIC ORDER WHICH IS IN QUESTION. THE CONTENTION THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THE B CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT IS OF NO RELEVANCE. SO ALSO, WHEN THE HIGH COURT WAS CONSIDERING A PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC, IT COULD NOT DELVE INTO MERITS AND QUASH THE CHARGES BY A CRYPTIC ORDER WHICH IS IN QUESTION. THE CONTENTION THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THE B CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT IS OF NO RELEVANCE. IN CASE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, ON APPRECIATION THEREOF, THE COURT OF SESSION WOULD DECIDE SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 30 OF 2002. WITHOUT EXAMINING ANY OF THESE RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS, THE CHARGES WERE ORDERED TO BE DROPPED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS WHOLLY UNSUSTAINABLE. 6. IN THIS VIEW, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ALLOW THE APPEAL. 7. THE SESSIONS CASE SHALL BE DECIDED ON ITS OWN MERITS, WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY ANY OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THIS ORDER.