Rinku vs State of M.P.

Tarun Kumar Kaushal, J.—Heard.

Present revision is directed against the order dated 1.10.2013 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in S.T. No. 43/2012, framing charge under Sections 307/34, 394, 397/398, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC against the petitioner.

Necessary facts, in short, are that on 28.1.2008 at about 1.20 P.M. injured complainant Deoraj Singh and his companion Suresh Singh were robbed of their bike while they came near Ramkrishna College by two unknown accused persons at gun point. In the aforesaid incident, as a result of gun shot, one pellet hit at the injured complainant Deoraj Singh. FIR was registered against unknown accused persons at City Kotwali Satna for the offence under Sections 307 and 394 of the IPC. On 18.10.2011, aforesaid looted bike was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and police recovered looted items regarding co-accused Ramakant Awasthy also who is absconding till today. While registration papers of the aforesaid bike was searched and recovered, it was revealed that forgery has been committed in preparation of fake registration papers also. On the basis of aforesaid, police submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and the co-accused Ramakant Awasthy, who was shown absconded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except memorandum u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, no evidence has been collected in the charge sheet to show the involvement of the petitioner in the incident. Aforesaid memorandum is not reliable piece of evidence because it is not admissible in evidence. In test identification parade also witnesses failed to identify the petitioner. Petitioner has been implicated on the basis of recovery of looted bike alone.

In response, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that looted bike which was robbed of by two miscreants was recovered from the possession of the petitioner with fake registration papers speaks a lot about everything. If the culprit is not identified by the face then at least evidence of recovery of looted bike is available on record.

Prima facie, on the basis of recovery of looted bike from the possession of the petitioner along with fake registration papers and FIR has been lodged promptly against unknown accused persons, charge cannot be said to be baseless against the petitioner.

In the aforesaid situation, it cannot be said to be a case of discharge of the accused. One accused is absconding though he is the main accused but evidence of recovery of looted bike is the material piece of evidence which cannot be brushed aside easily. Whatever has been averred by the petitioner in this petition can be raised and established through witnesses during trial and petitioner will get the benefit of all lapses and lacuna in the course of trial also.

On perusal of the evidence of recovery of looted bike along with fake registration papers and the FIR, it cannot be said to be a case of discharge. Trial Court has committed no error in framing of charge.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.