Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 177 (MP)

Rambabu v. State of M. P.

2011-02-08

INDRANI DATTA

body2011
ORDER 1. Applicant has preferred this revision under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC against order dated.28.10.2010 passed by Special Judge, Datia, whereby charges under sections 148, 341,294, 307/149 of IPC and under sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act have been framed against him. . 2. Laconically the facts of the case are that complianant Anand lodged a• report at police Station, Pandhokar, Distt. Datia, that when he was returning from his field at 12 p.m., co-accused No. 1-Rakesh, No. 2-Ramniwas, No. 2-Arun @ Rinku, No. 4-Raju, No. 5-Santosh and No.6-Sunil restrained him and started abusing. On his objection, accused Rakesh fired at him which hit his right calf. Thereafter, accused Ramniwas also fired at him two times by 12 bore Katta. The accused persons also threatened him to kill and thereafter by making fire in the air, they went away from the spot. On this report, Crime No. 98/2010 was registered at above-said Police Station against aforementioned accused persons. Thereafter, charge-sheet has been filed against the accused persons as well as against applicant Rambabu and charges have been framed by learned Trial Court against the applicant under sections 148,341,294,307/149 of IPC read with sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act. Against the order of framing charge by learned trial Court, this revision has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant's name is not mentioned in the FIR. It is further contended that neither in the statement of injured/complainant Anand, nor in the statement of other prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161 of CrPC anything has been stated against the present applicant. It is further submitted that he is implicated in the case on the basis of the statement of Ramkumar recorded on 21. 7.2010 under section 161 of CrPC, who is not an eye-witness as per his own statement Pankaj, Brijbhushan, Ashok and Ramkhilone came to his house and intimated him that applicant and accused person were sitting near Chakora Nale and applicant was asking his brothers to kill Ramkumar Pachori. Thereafter, injured Annad at about 12 p.m. came to him and blood was oozing from his leg. On asking by this witness, he informed that accused persons abused him and thereafter accused Rakesh caused firearm injury to him and all other accused persons were armed with sword, Addhi and Baka. Thereafter, injured Annad at about 12 p.m. came to him and blood was oozing from his leg. On asking by this witness, he informed that accused persons abused him and thereafter accused Rakesh caused firearm injury to him and all other accused persons were armed with sword, Addhi and Baka. It is further submitted by learned counsel that as per the statement of this witness Ramkumar also, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant, as he himself has not heard the alleged conversation between applicant and his brothers, nor he has stated that complainant Anand told him that applicant also caused injury to him. There is no other evidence against the applicant to connect him with the crime. Hence, prayed for setting aside the order of learned Trial Court whereby aforesaid charges have been framed against him. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 5. Heard rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. On perusal of the charge-sheet papers placed on record, it is apparent that the material, which has been col1ected by investigating agency against the applicant, is very weak. Witness Ramkumar is also not an eye-witness and the information which he has gathered is form "hearsay" source. It is we11 known that facing a trial is a tedious and expensive ordeal. There is no point in sending a person to such a tedious and expensive ordeal when he is likely to be acquitted after the trial on account of such a weak evidence which is not corroborated. Hence, I find the defect of gross incorrectness in framing aforesaid charges against the applicant and what is grossly incorrect cannot be treated to be proper and fair. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, order of learned trial Court whereby aforesaid charges have been framed against the applicant is hereby set aside. The revision is accordingly allowed.