Geloh @ Nait Singh vs State of M.P.

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) for invoking inherent powers of this Court with a prayer that the order dated 22.02.2012, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 16/2011 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Datia, whereby additional charge on petitioner was framed under Sections 307 and 307/149 of The Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC). The complete set of charge sheet has been filed today.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on perusal of the entire evidence and FSL report dated 31.10.2011, it reveals that the bullet which was taken out from the body of Yogesh (deceased) marked as EB3 and on the last page of the report dated 31.10.2011 it was opined by the expert that bullet EB3 and other bullets EB1 and EB2 were fired by same firearm.

To made clear, it is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bullet EB1 and EB2 were taken out from the body of Diwakar Singh Yadav (deceased), further the allegation made in the Dehati Nalisi accused Pooran Yadav had fired on Diwakar and petitioner Geloh Yadav had fired on Yogesh, therefore, it was not possible that all the three bullets were fired from same firearm by the petitioner Geloh Yadav. In the aforesaid premises, additional charge, which has been framed against the petitioner is required to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and Another, , Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi and Others Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, , Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another, and State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, .

On the contrary, it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State and the counsel for the complainant that in Dehati Nalisi specific allegations were made that the petitioner Geloh Yadav had fired, resultantly Yogesh has died and specific allegation were also made that Diwarkar died of the fire of the accused Pooran Yadav. It has also submitted that these facts were also made clear from the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C., and opinion given in FSL report in regard to three bullets which were fired from the same firearm can be possible if fire is made by different firearms of the same make.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case laws, record has been perused. In view of the specific allegations made against the petitioner, in the FIR and in statements of the witnesses, prima facie, grounds were available for the trial Court to frame the impugned additional charge against the petitioner.

So far as the opinion of the FSL report, pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is concerned the arguments advanced by the respondents cannot be ignored at this stage.

In the opinion of this Court, two views are not possible looking to the evidence and material available on record, it is held that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not erroneous.

Resultantly, petition is summarily dismissed at the stage of admission. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court.