ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. This Special Leave Petition and four other Special Leave Petitions have been filed against the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 11 th September, 2006, whereby the order of the Sessions Judge, Bhopal, framing charges against the accused under Section 304 Part II IPC in Sessions Trial No. 212 of 2005 was set aside and directions were given to frame charge only under Section 323/34 IPC. As all the Special Leave Petitions arise out of the common judgment of the High Court. the same are being heard together. Leave is accordingly granted in all the five Special Leave petitions (Crl.) Nos. 6010 and 5473 of 2006, filed by Mrs. Indu Jain, No. 2132 of 2007 filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, No. 2584 and 2588 of 2007 filed by the accused.

2. In order to appreciate the different stands taken by the different appellants in the matter, some relevant facts are reproduced herein below which will have a bearing on the final decision in these appeals.

3. On 14th July, 2004, officers of the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Bhopal, headed by Shri B.P. Singh and Shri Mokham Singh Nain, who are the appellants in the appeals arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 2584 and 2588 of 2007 and accused in the complaint filed by Ms. Indu Jain, the appellant in the appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6010 of 5473 of 2006, set a trap for one Shri R.K. Jain, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bhopal, and arrested him for taking a bribe of Rs. •2,000/- from one of Mr. Chhajed, Tax Consultant, at 5.30 p.m. on 15th July, 2004, prior to 9 a.m. Shri Jain was found unconscious in the bathroom of the office of the .Lokayukta, Bhopal, and was taken to Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal; for treatment. The records of the hospital show that when Shri Jain was brought to the hospital at 9 a.m. on 15th July, 2004, his body had neither any pulse nor respiration and recordable blood pressure and even heart sounds were absent. Though resuscitation measures were undertaken, including cardiac pulmonary resuscitation (C.P.R.), there was little response and Shri Jain was declared dead at1.30 p.m. on the same day.

4. The post-mortem examination of the deceased, which was conducted on 15th July, 2004, itself, at about 4 p.m. revealed certain injuries on the body, which included broken ribs, but the cause of death was shown to be on account of asphyxia within six hours of the post-mortem examination.

5. On completion of investigation, the investigating agency filed a charge-sheet before the trial court on 12th May, 2004, and on 15th July, 2005, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the five accused persons, namely, B.P. Singh, Mokham Singh Nain, Badri Nihale, Ramashish and Silvanus Tirki under Section 304 Part II IPC, but dropped the charge under Section 330 IPC.

6. Aggrieved by the framing of charge under Section 304 Part II IPC, accused Mokham Singh Nain filed Criminal Revision No. 1203 of 2005, wh1le the other four accused filed Criminal Revision No. 1204 of 2005, before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur.

On the other hand, on account of the dropping of charges under Section 330 IPG. Mrs. Indu Jain, widow of the deceased, filed Criminal Revision No. 1114 of 2005. All the revisional applications were heard together by the High Court which by its order dated 11th September, 2006,set aside the charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge and directed that charge could only be framed under Section 323/34 IPC.

7. As mentioned hereinbefore, these five appeals have been filed against the said judgment and order of the High Court.

8. Appearing in these appeals on behalf of Mrs. Indu Jain, the widow of the deceased, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior counsel submitted that the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court impugned in these appeals, was quite clearly against the Police Report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that from the arrest memo of the deceased in connection with Crime N