Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2509 (RAJ)

Shyam Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2017-11-15

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2017
ORDER : Pankaj Bhandari, J. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 12.01.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City (Rajasthan) vide which the Court has framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. against the present petitioner. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that as per the prosecution case there was a property dispute between Shiv Charan Meena and Dr. Prakash Agarwal. It has come in the charge-sheet that Shiv Charan Meena contacted Yogesh for eliminating Dr. Prakash Agarwal who hired shooters to kill Dr. Prakash Agarwal. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner gave money to his brother Shiv Charan Meena. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence namesake against the petitioner except the interrogation note of Yogesh, Shiv Kishan @ Shokin, Chamanveer @ Chintu. 4. It is contended that interrogation note of the co-accused cannot form the basis for framing charges. The dispute as per the prosecution case was between Shiv Charan Meena and Dr. Prakash Agarwal and though mobile of the petitioner has been recovered but there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner ever contacted Yogesh or the shooters. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1336 of 2017 decided by this Court on 29.08.2017. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that in the charge-sheet, it is mentioned that petitioner sold his property in the year 2013 and from that money he gave money to his brother which was given by Shiv Charan Meena to Yogesh. 7. It is also contended that at the stage of framing of charges the Court is required to only see whether prima facie there is evidence against the accused and the roving inquiry is not required to be conducted. 8. I have considered the contentions. 9. It is true that roving inquiry is not required to be done at the time of framing of charges. Equally, it is true that a person should not be made to face the agony of a trial if he is not involved in the commission of crime. 10. 8. I have considered the contentions. 9. It is true that roving inquiry is not required to be done at the time of framing of charges. Equally, it is true that a person should not be made to face the agony of a trial if he is not involved in the commission of crime. 10. In the list of witnesses annexed with the charge-sheet, there is not a single witness who in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 has levelled any allegation against the present petitioner. Prosecution has placed reliance on the interrogation note of co-accused to the effect that Shyam Lal gave money to his brother Shiv Charan Meena. The interrogation note of an accused cannot be made a ground for proceeding against co-accused against whom there is no other material evidence. The land dispute was between Shiv Charan Meena and Dr. Prakash Agarwal and at best the prosecution case is that Shiv Charan Meena hired shooters to eliminate Dr. Prakash Agarwal. 11. Even, if we consider the entire evidence which is available on record then also there is not an iota of evidence to bring home the conviction against the present petitioner, proceeding against him would therefore be an exercise in futility. 12. In view of the same, there was no justification for the Court below to frame charges against the present petitioner under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. 13. Consequently, the revision petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 12.01.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City (Rajasthan) qua the petitioner is quashed and set-aside. Stay application stands disposed.