JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan being aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.1995 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Criminal Case No.13/94 (62/91), whereby, he has reversed the order dated 23.08.1989 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mavli taking cognizance against the respondents for the offences under Sections 147 and 302 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are set out here-in-below. 3. The complainant - Bhura filed a report at the Police Station Mavli on 06.11.1986 alleging inter alia that in the morning, he was at his house at about 8 to 9 am. His brother Lalu and nephew Vena had gone to put manure in the fields on the bullock Cart. At that time, Vena came shouted that his father Lalu had been done to death by certain persons of the village namely Champa, Ganesh, Shanker, Ratta, Dalu, Gokal and Kalu by beating him with lathis at the well located at the field. 4. On the basis of this report, FIR No.114/1986 was registered at the Police Station Mavli and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the police got the dead body of Lalu subjected to post mortem and came to the conclusion that the death of Lalu was as a result of sudden suffocation and accordingly proposed a final report in the matter. 5. The learned trial court rejected the FR on 23.09.1989 against which, the respondents herein preferred a revision petition, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 12.06.1995 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur. 6. The State has preferred the present revision petition being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the revisional court setting a side the order of taking cognizance. 7. Assailing the order impugned, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in this case, there is evidence available on the record by way of the statements the eye witnesses who have specifically deposed about the assault being made on the deceased by the accused. He submits that the learned revisional court has relied upon the subsequent statements of these witnesses, wherein, they have resiled from the earlier version. He submits that the learned revisional court has relied upon the subsequent statements of these witnesses, wherein, they have resiled from the earlier version. He submits that such a course of action was absolutely unjustified because firstly the testimony of Vena, the son of the deceased remained un-altered. Merely because some of the witnesses made vacillating statements from their earlier versions that by itself could not have a ground for exonerating the accused from the offence under Section 302 IPC. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in this case, the deceased had expired as a result of suffocation. He submits that there is no material on the record of the case, by which, it can be inferred that the respondents were responsible for murdering the deceased. He has further submitted that there are two contradictory statements of the witnesses. He submits that in the first statements of the witnesses of the prosecution they have made allegations against the respondents but in the subsequent statements made by these very witnesses, they have exonerated the accused and, thus, the revisional court was perfectly justified in placing reliance on the subsequent versions for the purpose of setting a side the cognizance order. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar. 10. In the opinion of this court, simply because there are two sets of evidence available on record that by itself cannot be a reason to exonerate the accused from the grave offence of murder. There is a distinct testimony available on record by virute of statement of witness Vena, who is none other than the son of the deceased and the witnesses named in the FIR as per which all the accused persons were seen assaulting the deceased. The postmortem report of the deceased reveals that apart from there being large number of injuries on the body of the deceased and it has been found that the death of Lalu had taken place as a result of smothering. 11. The police has given opinion that the deceased consumed too much of 'rabdi' and, therefore, he was suffocated. This fact is not revealed from the Post Mortem Report examination of the deceased. The cause of death distinctly is smothering and the same is not by regurgitation of food particles as observed in the final report. 12. 11. The police has given opinion that the deceased consumed too much of 'rabdi' and, therefore, he was suffocated. This fact is not revealed from the Post Mortem Report examination of the deceased. The cause of death distinctly is smothering and the same is not by regurgitation of food particles as observed in the final report. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari and Others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 121 has held that at the stage of framing of charge, meticulous consideration of the evidence and material was not required. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the reasoning given by the High Court for quashing the charge i.e. the material differences in the second statement of the witnesses from first statement being fatal to the prosecution story has been held to be absolutely illegal. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "On a consideration of the matter, we find the grievance of the appellants to be wellfounded. The High Court has failed to give due consideration to the fact that the investigation of the case had been handed over to the C.I.D. because of unsatisfactory investigation by the authorities of Todabhim Police Station. As such the C.I.D. was under an obligation to examine once again the witnesses already examined and to examine other persons whom the original investigating agency ought to have examined but had failed to examine. In the very nature of things, a fuller and effective investigation by the C. I. D. is bound to bring out several materials not discovered or recorded by the first investigating agency. As to how much acceptance has to be given to the investigation done by the C. I. D. and the statements of witnesses recorded by its officers is a matter which can be determined only after the trial is held and the witnesses and the investigating officer adduce their evidence on oath. As regards the non-mention of the date of recording of the statement of Sravan Lal, a finding can be rendered on the omission only after the C. I. D. officer who recorded the statement is given opportunity to explain the reason for the omission. In so far as the High Court's view that "in the interest of justice, it is the duty of the Court under section 482, Cr. In so far as the High Court's view that "in the interest of justice, it is the duty of the Court under section 482, Cr. P. C. to go into the merits of the evidence and appreciate correctly the documents and the statements filed by the police", we may only refer to Mohd. Akbar Dar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir. (1981) Supp. SCC 80 : AIR 1981 SC 1548 , where it has been pointed out that at the stage of framing of charges, meticulous consideration of evidence and materials by Court is not required." 14. In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the opinion that the impugned order of the revision court setting aside the order of taking cognizance is absolutely illegal. 15. Accordingly, this revision petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 12.06.1995 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Criminal Case No.13/94 (62/91), whereby, he has reversed the order dated 23.08.1989 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mavli is hereby set aside. 16. The learned trial court is directed to summon the accused respondents by bailable warrants and thereafter proceed against them as per law.Revision allowed. *******