ORDER : Pawan Agrawal, Banti Agrawal, Nitesh Agrawal and Radha Govind Agrawal are alleged to have committed murder of Ranjeet Kumar Mishra in prosecution of criminal conspiracy hatched by them with two unknown persons. Sidhgora PS Case No. 16 of 2012 was registered against them on 25th February 2012 under sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Navin Chandra Mishra, who is the father of Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, gave a written complaint to the officer-in-charge of Sidhgora PS alleging that the aforesaid accused persons committed murder of his son in the intervening night of 24th/25th February 2012 and to give it the colour of suicide hanged the dead body in the house. 2. According to the informant, Banti Agrawal along with two other persons came to his house at 5:00 PM on 24th February 2012 and asked his daughter-in-law to talk to her husband on whose instructions she gave Rs.2,50,000/-to them. Around 8:00 PM, the same day, Banti Agrawal and other two persons again came to his daughter-in-law and asked for her jewelleries. These informations were given to him by his daughter-in-law who appeared very perturbed and therefore he immediately came home, when his daughter-in-law narrated the whole incident to him. In the evening, when his son did not come back home he went to his office which however was closed and therefore he tried to approach the partner of Pawan Agrawal on his mobile phone. On inquiry by him, the said person informed him that his son was busy with some bank work and would go back home next day morning but his son did not come back home. On inquiry with Sidhgora PS, he was told that his son committed suicide and his dead body was lying in the house of Radha Govind Agrawal. 3. A charge-sheet was laid against Nitesh Agrawal and Banti Agrawal under sections 306/342/34 of the Indian Penal Code and charges were framed against them for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and two witnesses were examined as Court witness during the trial – the last witness was examined on 2nd September 2014. 4. At this stage, an application under section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the prosecution on 5th January 2015 for addition of charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. 4. At this stage, an application under section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the prosecution on 5th January 2015 for addition of charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. By that time, a petition under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had already been filed by the prosecution for summoning Pawan Agrawal, Radha Govind Agrawal and Mahesh Agrawal for committing murder of Ranjeet Kumar Mishra in furtherance of common intention and criminal conspiracy hatched by them. 6. Both petitions were heard on the same day and allowed by a common order dated 23rd January 2015. 7. Banti Agrawal who is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 478 of 2015 has challenged the order dated 23rd January 2015 to the extent charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added in S.T. No. 251 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur. 8. Radha Govind Agrawal, Pawan Agrawal and Mahesh Agrawal have filed separate criminal revision petitions challenging the order dated 23rd January 2015 by which they are summoned to face the trial on the charge under sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel appearing for Banti Agrawal in Criminal Revision No. 478 of 2015 assails the order dated 23rd January 2015 insofar as addition of charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at the fag end of the trial is concerned. 10. A glance at the order dated 23rd January 2015 would reveal that the application under section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed by the trial Judge at the stage when the sessions case was fixed for argument. 11. The learned trial Judge has observed that the dead body of Ranjeet Kumar Mishra was found in the house of Pawan Agrawal and Radha Govind Agrawal but they did not inform the local police and this act of the accused shows their guilty mind. The learned trial Judge has taken note of evidence of PW13 who deposed in the Court that the cloth (saree) used in hanging belonged to her sister-in-law Sharmila Agrawal, who is the wife of Radha Govind Agrawal. The learned trial Judge further took note of CDRs which show that on the date of occurrence the father and wife of the deceased had a talk with Mahesh Agrawal. The learned trial Judge further took note of CDRs which show that on the date of occurrence the father and wife of the deceased had a talk with Mahesh Agrawal. The learned trial Judge proceeded to examine the medical evidence and role of the investigating officer to hold that death of Ranjeet Kumar Mishra was homicidal but investigation in the case was done in a biased manner to help the accused persons. 12. The following facts have been considered by the learned trial Judge for addition of charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code: (i) the deceased was working as accountant in the office of Pawan Agrawal, (ii) the bank manager suspected one person withdrawing cash of Rs.30,000/-through a cheque allegedly drawn by Pawan Agrawal which on inquiry he denied to have issued, (iii) PW5, the bank manager, stated that at the instance of Pawan Agrawal he did not hand over Ranjeet Kumar Mishra to the police, (iv) the investigating officer stated that Pawan Agrawal told him that Ranjeet Kumar Mishra had fraudulently withdrawn Rs.3,55,000/-from his account, (v) Ranjeet Kumar Mishra was found dead in the house of Pawan Agrawal and Radha Govind Agrawal, (vi) the evidence on record suggests that Ranjeet Kumar Mishra had gone to office on 24th February 2012 but did not come back home and later on his cell phone was found switched off, (vii) Banti Agrawal gave false information to the wife of Ranjeet Kumar Mishra that her husband is confined in the police station, (viii) Poonam Agrawal, who is PW13, deposed in the Court that Ranjeet Kumar Mishra came alone and stayed in a room in the house of Pawan Agrawal, and (ix) ligature mark over most part of the neck suggests strangulation. 13. Under the heading “Test of evidence by the touchstone of probability with the sense of reality”, the learned trial Judge posed the following questions which according to him have remained unanswered: (i) Why will deceased go to stay in the house of Pawan Kumar Agrawal situated at Vidyapati Nagar on 24-02-12 at 8 P.M. alone while his office is situated at Bistupur, especially when he had not gone to take lunch at his house? (ii) Why will Ranjeet Mishra chose the house of Pawan Kumar Agrawal & Radha Govind Agrawal to commit suicide? (ii) Why will Ranjeet Mishra chose the house of Pawan Kumar Agrawal & Radha Govind Agrawal to commit suicide? (iii) Why will deceased chose such time to commit suicide especially when 2.5 lakh rupees were already returned by his wife on his instruction? (iv) Why will Ranjeet commit suicide having left the door of room open? (v) How did deceased find the saree of the wife of Radha Govind Agrawal? 14. Finally, the learned trial Judge held that death of Ranjeet Kumar Mishra does not appear to be a case of suicidal hanging rather it was a homicidal hanging. 15. At the outset, I may indicate that the manner in which the evidence laid in S.T. No. 251 of 2013 has been appreciated by the learned trial Judge cannot be countenance in law. The requirement in law for addition of charge in exercise of powers under section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is well settled that the evidence collected in course of investigation must raise “strong suspicion” on complicity of the accused in the crime. The mistakes committed by the investigating officer in course of the investigation cannot be a ground to frame or add a charge against the accused. The learned trial Judge posed hypothetical question unto himself to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to add charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may alter or add any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. 17. In “Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja” (1979) 4 SCC 274 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that at the stage of framing of charge the prosecution evidence is yet to start and therefore the Court is not expected to test the veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce against the accused. In “State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh” (1977) 4 SCC 39 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that at the stage of framing of charge the Court is not expected to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. In “State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh” (1977) 4 SCC 39 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that at the stage of framing of charge the Court is not expected to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that strong suspicion which remains in the realm of suspicion cannot take place of proof of a fact which is required to be established during the trial, but, at the initial stage of framing of charge if there is strong suspicion which makes the Court to think that there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offence the Court should frame charge against the accused. 18. In view of the aforesaid legal principles, this Court is conscious that this is not the stage of meticulous examination of the materials produced by the prosecutor for framing the charge and all that the learned Magistrate/Sessions Judge is required to see whether a prima-facie case is made out, in that, strong suspicion arises against the accused so as to forward him to face the trial. 19. As can be discerned from medical evidence of the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination that this can be a case of suicidal hanging. The expression used by the doctor that “it may be a case of suicide” has been interpreted by the learned trial Judge as if it may not be a case of suicide rather Ranjeet Kumar Mishra suffered homicidal death. The statement of the doctor in the cross-examination that “ligature is matter of investigation” has been interpreted by the learned trial Judge to raise an inference on involvement of the accused in committing murder of Ranjeet Kumar Mishra. 20. Furthermore, the learned trial Judge has referred to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence to hold that Ranjeet Kumar Mishra suffered a homicidal death. 21. There is no eyewitness who came forward to inform the investigating officer or deposed in the Court that he saw Ranjeet Kumar Mishra in the company of the accused persons. As PW1, Dr. Vibhakar Kumar deposed in the Court that the dead body of a person aged about 35 years and of average built was brought before him for conducting postmortem examination. As PW1, Dr. Vibhakar Kumar deposed in the Court that the dead body of a person aged about 35 years and of average built was brought before him for conducting postmortem examination. The doctor observed that the ligature mark on the upper most part of the neck was oblique and high up towards left side of the neck. Another significant observation of the doctor is that neck was abraded and contused. On dissection of the neck, the doctor found underneath soft tissue pale and glistening with features of parclementasation and internal organs were found congested. 22. In the Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (26th Edition), Modi writes that in suicidal hanging the ligature mark would be oblique and upward in the neck whereas in homicidal strangulation the ligature mark would be continuous, horizontal and lower down in the neck. The learned writer further observed that in homicidal strangulation it is common that there would be abrasions and ecchymosis round about the edges of ligature marks. 23. A glance at the aforesaid characteristics of suicidal hanging as described by Modi brings at once a thought in the mind that opinion of the doctor that Ranjeet Kumar Mishra died on account of asphyxia due to hanging is prima-facie correct, as the observations of the doctor in the postmortem report are almost similar as described by Modi in a case of suicidal hanging. Furthermore, the above extracted text from Modi's book shows how the learned Judge misdirected himself by taking note of insignificant observations of the doctor during the cross-examination. 24. The learned trial Judge in the concluding part of the order dated 23rd January 2015 on the application under section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has held as under: “On the basis of above established facts and circumstances in the light of discussions of antemortem injuries keeping in mind the basics on this issue pointed out in Medical Jurisprudence (above refereed) especially when deceased was made captive by accused persons to realise money defalcated by him and the door of room, in which dead body was hanged, was found open, I am of the considered view that above discussed facts and circumstances rule out the theory of suicidal hanging and at the same time they unerringly point out about homicidal hanging. Regard being had the above findings, the petition filed by prosecution to amend the charge is hereby allowed as I found sufficient material to add charge u/s 302/34/120B of the I.P.C in this case.” 25. The aforesaid findings recorded by the learned trial Judge is contrary to the records inasmuch as no witness has deposed in the Court that Ranjeet Kumar Mishra was kept captive, rather, PW13 has said that Ranjeet Kumar Mishra came alone, she offered food to him but he said that he had already taken food. From the medical evidence, it becomes more clear that no external injury was found on the dead body of Ranjeet Kumar Mishra which in normal circumstances would have been there had it been a case of murder by throttling or strangulation. 26. In the aforesaid facts, I find that the order dated 23rd January 2015 takes note of conjectures and surmises in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to hold that Ranjeet Kumar Mishra was murdered and for that reason the said order is liable to be set-aside. 27. Sri A.K. Kashyap, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 173 of 2015 submits that Mahesh Agrawal was not named in the First Information Report and after the investigation no material on his complicity could be collected by the investigating officer and, therefore, he was not sent-up for trial by naming him as an accused in the charge-sheet. 28. Sri R.S. Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) in Criminal Revision Nos. 115 of 2015 and 158 of 2015 submits that the learned trial Judge exceeded his jurisdiction while exercising the powers under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and committed serious errors in law inasmuch as against the Constitution Bench judgment in “Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab” (2014) 3 SCC 92 the learned trial Judge has referred to cross-examination of the witnesses to come to a conclusion that there are sufficient evidence against Radha Govind Agrawal, Pawan Agrawal and Mahesh Agrawal to summon them as additional accused to face the trial on the charge under sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 29. 29. The basic requirement under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence laid during the trial and it is not sufficient that the Court entertained some doubts about involvement of the proposed accused in the offence. It is contended that if large number of witnesses have already been examined the Court must seriously consider whether the object sought to be achieved by exercise of powers under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is worth wasting the whole labour already undertaken and, therefore, in appropriate cases the Court should refrain from adopting the course under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 30. The learned trial Judge proceeded to examine evidence of PW5, PW11 and PW14 and came to a conclusion that Pawan Agrawal, Radha Govind Agrawal and Mahesh Agrawal should be impleaded as additional accused to face the trial on the charge under sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal code. 31. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II in the impugned order dated 23rd January 2015 has recorded the following findings: “In a nutshell, it is evident from record that during course of employment, deceased had fraudulently withdrawn cash in lakhs from the account of Pawan Agrawal and after unveiling the curtain behind his fraudulent withdrawal, deceased was detained on 24-02-12, when he came to his office thereafter, by sending/going the accused persons, who are facing trial and others FIR named accused-persons (not sent up in C.S) and Mahesh Agrawal to the house of deceased, cash Rs.2.5 lakh was brought from the wife of deceased by making telephonic conversation possible between deceased and his wife on cell phone in furtherance of common intention/conspiracy. Again they went at the house of deceased and demanded jewellery from his wife by giving her threatening to do away with the life of her husband, whereupon she informed about these facts to her father in law, who came and went to the office of his son at Bistupur and found the office closed thereafter he managed to obtain cell number of one partner namely Mahesh Agrawal of said firm and talked to him at about 10/10.15 P.M on 24.02.2012, thereupon Mahesh Agrawal informed him, “Ranjeet Mishra is working and he will return in morning.” Thus it stands established that deceased was mad captive by the persons of P.K. Associates and relative of Pawan Agrawal since morning on 24.02.2012, and his dead body was found hanged by fan in the morning of 25-02-12 in house Pawan Agrawal. Thereafter an FIR u/s 302 IPC was registered against Pawan Agrawal, Radha Govind Agrawal and others also along with accused who is facing trial. The death of deceased was occurred due to hanging, which was found homicidal hanging at the time of hearing a petition u/s 216 Cr.P.C. From the above discussed findings based on evidence, this Court is satisfied that Pawan Agarwal, Radha Govind Agarwal and Mahesh Agrawal must be impleaded as an additional accused because 'THEORY OF LAST SEEN' comes into play in the facts and circumstances of the case and the burden of proof lies on these persons u/s 106 I.E. Act and if they fail to explain how and what circumstances the victim suffered death, there would be no option to them but to own the liability for this homicide. Meaning thereby on application of the test formulated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court for summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C, in the facts and circumstance of the instant case, I am of the opinion that the degree of satisfaction required for this provision exists in this case as evidence discussed if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction. Meaning thereby on application of the test formulated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court for summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C, in the facts and circumstance of the instant case, I am of the opinion that the degree of satisfaction required for this provision exists in this case as evidence discussed if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction. Thus, on the strength of section 319 Cr.P.C, I am of the opinion that Pawan Agarwal, Radha Govind Agarwal and Mahesh Agrawal must be impleaded as an additional accused, as this Court, on the basis of aforesaid mentioned facts and circumstances, found that they could be tried together with the accused Banti Agrawal, who is already facing trial accordingly Pawan Agarwal, Radha Govind Agarwal and Mahesh Agrawal are hereby summoned as accused to face trial for the offence punishable u/s 302/34/120B IPC. O/C is directed to issue summon against Pawan Agarwal, Radha Govind Agarwal and Mahesh Agrawal for the commission of murder of Ranjeet Kumar Mishra in furtherance of common intention/conspiracy punishable u/s 302/34/120B I.P.C as well as to open a new file for S.T. Case in style S.T. 251A/13 [for purpose of trial as per u/s 319 (4) Cr.P.C] by obtaining the certified copies of FIR, C.S, all depositions, all exhibits and necessary orders from copying section.” 32. In “Hardeep Singh” the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the word evidence has to be understood in its wider sense both at the stage of a trial and even at the stage of inquiry. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the powers under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised at the stage of completion of examination-in-chief and the Court need not wait till the evidence is tested on cross-examination. As regards satisfaction of the Court for invoking the power under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression used under section 319(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that “the Court may proceed against other persons who appear to be guilty of offence” would mean satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials brought on record and only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the materials laid before the Court that such powers should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 33. 33. In the order dated 23rd January 2015, the learned trial Judge has taken note of various judgments and commented on role of the investigating officer and observed that he failed to file charge-sheet against two accused who were named in the First Information Report. The learned trial Judge proceeded to examine evidence of both the investigating officer and perused the case-diary to come to a conclusion that no reason can be found why the charge-sheet was not filed under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the First Information Report was registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The approach of the learned trial Judge is clearly erroneous and contrary to the settled law that evidence of the investigating officer is largely not substantive in nature and the same cannot be relied upon to convict a person. 34. In “Y. Saraba Reddy v. Puthur Rami Reddy” (2007) 4 SCC 773 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “7....... If the satisfaction of the investigating officer or supervising officer is to be treated as determinative, then the very purpose of Section 319 of the Code would be frustrated. Though it cannot always be the satisfaction of the investigating officer which is to prevail, yet in the instant case the High Court has not found the evidence of PW 1 to be unworthy of acceptance. Whatever be the worth of his evidence for the purposes of Section 319 of the Code it was required to be analysed. The conclusion that the IO's satisfaction should be given primacy is unsustainable. ......” 35. The learned senior counsels appearing for the parties have referred to evidence of PW1, PW5, PW11, PW13, PW14 and CW2 on which the learned trial Judge placed reliance to summon Radha Govind Agrawal, Pawan Agrawal and Mahesh Agrawal under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face the trial for the charge under sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 36. PW5 is the bank manager who stated in the Court that when Ranjeet Kumar Mishra presented a cheque he became suspicious and he called Pawan Agrawal who requested him not to hand over Ranjeet Kumar Mishra to the police. 37. 36. PW5 is the bank manager who stated in the Court that when Ranjeet Kumar Mishra presented a cheque he became suspicious and he called Pawan Agrawal who requested him not to hand over Ranjeet Kumar Mishra to the police. 37. As PW11, father of the deceased deposed in the Court that around 3:00 PM Banti Agrawal alongwith two unknown persons came to his house and asked his daughter-in-law to talk to her husband and on instruction of his son his daughter-in-law gave Rs.2,50,000/-to them. He further stated that Banti Agrawal and two unknown persons again came to his house around 8:00 PM and asked his daughter-in-law to hand over her jewelleries. PW11 is not an eyewitness and his evidence in the Court is based on the informations supplied to him by his daughter-in-law who was examined as a Court witness. As CW2, daughter-in-law of the informant corroborated the aforesaid statement made by PW11. 38. Another important witness is PW13 who is none other than sister-in-law of Radha Govind Agrawal and Pawan Agrawal. Her evidence is to the effect that she saw Ranjeet Kumar Mishra coming alone to the house of Radha Govind Agrawal. She offered him food but he declined saying that he had already taken food. Next day morning, PW13 found Ranjeet Kumar Mishra hanging with a saree which according to her belonged to her sister-in-law, wife of Radha Govind Agrawal. 39. In the background of the aforesaid evidence tendered by PW11, PW13 and CW2, the learned senior counsels appearing for the petitioners would contend that the evidence tendered by these witnesses does not disclose commission of any offence much less offence of murder. 40. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the informant however submits that CDRs of the mobile phones belonging to wife of the deceased and the accused persons established that Ranjeet Kumar Mishra was under tremendous stress and in illegal confinement of the accused persons. 41. As noticed above, no one saw Ranjeet Kumar Mishra in the company of any of the accused persons and therefore an inference about his illegal confinement is difficult to raise. The circumstance that Banti Agrawal alongwith two other persons visited house of the deceased and demanded cash and jewelleries from his wife would indicate that Ranjeet Kumar Mishra was pressurized by his employer to return the defalcated amount. The circumstance that Banti Agrawal alongwith two other persons visited house of the deceased and demanded cash and jewelleries from his wife would indicate that Ranjeet Kumar Mishra was pressurized by his employer to return the defalcated amount. As PW5, the evidence of bank manager who is an independent witness would indicate that Ranjeet Kumar Mishra was trying to siphon off his employer's money. On the basis of such evidence, may be an inference can be drawn that the employer was putting pressure on Ranjeet Kumar Mishra to return the money but on such evidence it cannot be held that strong suspicion arises on complicity of the accused in murder of Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, who are summoned as additional accused to face the trial on the charge under sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence adduced against the proposed accused must be substantive evidence in order to summon him for trial and if there is no direct evidence of complicity of the proposed accused in the incident the summoning order can be set-aside. 42. Reliance placed by the learned trial Judge on the medical evidence and cross-examination of the prosecution witness is clearly contrary to the law laid down in “Hardeep Singh”. A glance at the order dated 23rd January 2015 clearly indicates that the learned trial Judge embarked on an exercise as if he was to write final judgment. There are findings recorded by the learned trial Judge such as (i) motive is proved, (ii) death of Ranjeet Kumar Mishra was homicidal, and (iii) the investigating officer was biased – which are totally unwarranted at this stage. Furthermore, the learned trial Judge has held that the prosecution evidence is sufficient to call additional accused on the basis of “last-seen-together theory”. The learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that there is no witness who has seen Ranjeet Kumar Mishra in the company of any of the accused. 43. In the aforesaid facts, I find that the judgment in “Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.” (Criminal Appeal No. 875 of 2021) and “Jayantilal Verma v. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)” (Criminal Appeal No. 590 of 2015) relied upon by the learned counsel for the informant are clearly distinguishable on facts. 43. In the aforesaid facts, I find that the judgment in “Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.” (Criminal Appeal No. 875 of 2021) and “Jayantilal Verma v. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)” (Criminal Appeal No. 590 of 2015) relied upon by the learned counsel for the informant are clearly distinguishable on facts. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and in view of opinion of the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination and rendered an opinion that Ranjeet Kumar Mishra died on account of asphyxia due to hanging as also medical jurisprudence by Modi, I am of the definite opinion that Radha Govind Agrawal, Pawan Agrawal and Mahesh Agrawal cannot be summoned as additional accused to face trial on the charge under sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 44. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussions, order dated 23rd January 2015 is set-aside. 45. Criminal Revision Nos. 115 of 2015, 158 of 2015, 173 of 2015 and Criminal Revision No. 478 of 2015 are allowed.