Kalla @ Deepak vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.

This revision petition has been preferred u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Ashoknagar, in Special S.T. No. 58/11 on 4.11.11, whereby charges u/s 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 302 of IPC, alternatively under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC, alternatively u/s 201/34 of IPC have been framed against the petitioner.

According to prosecution case, on the information that some unknown persons have murdered Pappu Gunda, Merg Intimation No. 70/11 was recorded. During enquiry, it was found that 3-4 unknown persons caused grievous injuries to the deceased and committed his murder. The case was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner alongwith Rajbhan, Sunil and Jagdish @ Arvind. Learned trial Court has framed the charges by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prima facie there is no evidence against the petitioner. The alleged eye-witnesses Raghuveer Singh, Rajumar and Laxmi Bai, the widow of the deceased, have not stated anything about the involvement of the petitioner. The son and wife of the deceased have stated that there was a dispute regarding transaction of money between Rajbhan and the deceased and Rajbhan and Sunil took the deceased from his house. Thereafter, they came to know that the deceased has been murdered. In pursuance of the memorandum of Rajbhan and Sunil, the weapon used in the commission of offence and a mobile have been seized. The petitioner has been involved merely on the basis of assumption. It is prayed that impugned order be quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State supported the impugned order.

I have perused the Challan papers and case diary.

Smt. Laxmi Bai widow of the deceased in her case diary statement has stated that Rajbhan and Sunil took her husband. Thereafter, her husband was found dead. Her husband has taken a loan from Rajbhan. Rajkumar, son of the deceased, has also stated the same fact. Raghuveer Singh in his case diary statement has stated that on 19.7.11 at about 8-8.15 p.m. he was in his shop. Rajbhan, Sunil and Pappu Ahirwar (deceased) came on motorcycle. Quarrel took place between them. Rajbhan slapped the deceased and thereafter picked up iron rod from his shop and gave its blow on the head of the deceased twice or thrice, as a result of which, Pappu fell down on the ground. In the statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. also, Raghuveer has stated that his shop is situated at Mandi Road. Rajbhan slapped a person and thereafter gave a blow by means of Tomi. One person was also accompanying Rajbhan. From the memorandum of Jagdish Yadav, it appears that he has talked with Rajbhan Singh on his mobile phone. Rajbhan in his memorandum has not stated anything about the involvement of the petitioner. In the charge-sheet, it is mentioned that Jagdish Yadav and Kalla made contact with principal accused and they were aware of commission of offence. However, no such call details is available in the case diary or charge-sheet.

Considering that the material collected during the investigation does not indicate the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of murder of the deceased, hence, in absence of any material against the petitioner, charges cannot be framed against the petitioner. In my considered opinion, the learned trial Court has not properly considered the material and committed an error in framing the charges against the petitioner. The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order framing charges against the petitioner is hereby quashed.