JUDGMENT 1. - Both the revision petitions u/s. 397 Cr.P.C. arise out of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh dated 31.5.2003 taking cognizance against the petitioners-Ram Niwas Bedi, Amarjeet Singh Bedi, Rajpal, Rajendra Singh & Sewak Singh for offence u/ss. 147, 302 and in alternative 302/149, 301 or 201/149 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 12.6.2002 one Paramjit Kaur submitted a report at Police Station Sangaria stating inter alia that her husband deceased-Charanjit Singh had shifted from village Bhagatpura to village Sangaria and was practicing for last 5-6 years. On last night at about 10.00 p.m. while her husband was sitting in the Office, the accused-Dinesh Tyagi gave him a call. Her husband invited I,'- -vide the house. Dinesh Tyagi entered in the house along with Ram Niwas Bedi, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Rajpal, Rajendra Singh and Sewak Singh. Dinesh Tyagi asked her husband that Ram Niwas is prepared to settle the land dispute with him. Her husband also expressed agreement for compromising the dispute. Dinesh Tyagi assured him to settle the entire dispute. Thereafter, he was asked to accompany them for celebration in his Chaubara. Her husband left in the company of Dinesh Tyagi and associates. While she was going to sleep Rajendra arrived and inquired about her husband. He collected Rs. 10,000/- from her. He also inquired as to why he had gone to Chaubara of Dinesh Tyagi in the company of Ram Niwas etc. Her husband did not return till morning. Lateron she came to know that the dead body of her husband was lying in the Chaubara of Dinesh Tyagi. On this information police registered a case for offence u/ss. 302, 147, 149 IPC and proceeded with investigation. After investigation the police laid charge-sheet against Dinesh Tyagi and two others namely Sandeep and Hem Chand. During the trial the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to connect the accused persons with the alleged crime. In addition to the evidence of last seen, the prosecution also relied on another important circumstance that the presence of blood stains out side the room of Dinesh Tyagi and further sign of trial of blood on the stairs. The blood-stained clothes were recovered from the possession of the accused-Dinesh Tyagi. The dead body was found in the house of Dinesh Tyagi. The blood-stained clothes were recovered from the possession of the accused-Dinesh Tyagi. The dead body was found in the house of Dinesh Tyagi. The evidence of last seen was severely criticised on number of counts. The learned Judge observed that even if the evidence of PW-12 Paramjit and PW-1 5 Rajendra Singh is excluded, there is sufficient evidence to connect the accused persons with the alleged crime. The observation of the trial Court is extracted as follows: " bl izdj.k esa ih0MCyw0 12 ijethr dkSj o ih0MCyw0 15 jktsUnz flag dh lk{; ds vykok ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; ,slh gS] ftldk fd ;Fkksfpr LFkku ij mYys[k fd;k tkosxk rFkk vxj ih0MCyw0 12 ijethrdkSj o ih0MCyw0 15 jktsUnz flag dh lk{; dks izdj.k ls fudky Hkh fn;k tkos rks Hkh izdj.k esa tks ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; gS] og ,slh gSa] ftlls dM+h ls dM+h tqM+rh gSaA " The Court further observed at page 22 as follows:- " tSlk fd esjs }kjk mij ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; esa foospu fd;k tk pqdk gS] vxj ih0MCyw0 12 ijethrdkSj o ih0MCyw0 15 jktsUnz flag dh lk{; dks ,d ejrck rdZ ds fy;s i=koyh ls gVk Hkh fn;k tkosa rks Hkh ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; bruh Bksl gSa] ftldh dM+h ls dM+h fey jgh gSa] ftlds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr&fnus'k R;kxh dks nks"kh djkj fn;s tkus dk i;kZIr vk/kkj gSaA " 3. The trial Court convicted Dinesh Tyagi of offence u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The two other accused persons namely Sandeep and Hem Chand have been acquitted. By the same judgment, the learned trial Court also disposed of the application filed by the prosecution u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. And took cognizance against the petitioners herein for offence u/ss. 147, 302 or 302/149 and 201 or 201/149 IPC. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel that the trial Court has committed an error in taking cognizance against the petitioners without considering the material on record. It is further submitted that even if the entire material on record is accepted on its face value there are no reasonable chance of petitioners being held guilty of the charge of murder of Charanjit Singh. After investigation the police found that the cause of death of deceased-Charanjit Singh was strangulation and this was an act of a single person. The police also found blood stains outside the room of Dinesh Tyagi. All the articles lying in his room were scattered. After investigation the police found that the cause of death of deceased-Charanjit Singh was strangulation and this was an act of a single person. The police also found blood stains outside the room of Dinesh Tyagi. All the articles lying in his room were scattered. It was further found that a trial of blood on the staircase was recently washed. The dead body was found in the house of Dinesh Tyagi. The trial Court has clearly held that the said circumstances were sufficient to conclude even on exclusion of evidence of last seen to hold him guilty of the charge of murder of Charanjit Singh. As far as the petitioners are concerned, the only evidence against them is that they also visited the house of the deceased along with Dinesh Tyagi. The deceased left the house along with the Dinesh Tyagi and the present petitioners. Therefore, the only evidence against the present petitioners is last seen. This circumstance cannot be said to be of a conclusive nature for more than one reasons. In fact the evidence of PW-12 Paramjit Kaur has also been shaken. Therefore, the trial Court has not placed firm reliance on the evidence of last seen. The Apex Court in Michael Machado v. C.B.I., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 262 has observed that a Court exercising judicial powers u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. must keep a conspectus of the entire case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence. The Court reminded that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other persons. The Court further quoted the observation from its earlier judgment in Municipal Corporation, Delhi v. Ram Krishan Rohtagi as follows : "But we would hasten to add that this really extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reason exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not bleen taken." 5. The Court further observed that a statement may create some suspicion against some person. A suspicion is not sufficient to hold that there is reasonable prospects of convicting the accused persons of offence of criminal conspiracy. 6. In the instant case the entire trial is concluded. The Court further observed that a statement may create some suspicion against some person. A suspicion is not sufficient to hold that there is reasonable prospects of convicting the accused persons of offence of criminal conspiracy. 6. In the instant case the entire trial is concluded. The evidence of last seen has not been found to be of conclusive nature and as such even if the accused petitioners are put to trial and the prosecution succeeds in establishing this piece of circumstance, it would not be sufficient to hold them guilty of the charge of murder of Charanjit Singh. It may create some suspicion but on that basis it cannot be said that there are reasonable prospects of their ultimate conviction for the offence u/s. 302 IPC. Hence the order of the trial Court in exercise of powers u/s. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be interfered with in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of law. 7. Consequently, both the revision petitions are allowed. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh dated 31.5.2003 so far as it relates to taking of cognizance against the petitioners-Ram Niwas Bedi, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Rajpal, Rajendra Singh and Sewak Singh for offence u/ss. 147, 302 or 302/149 & 201 or 201/149 IPC is quashed and set aside.Revision petition allowed. *******