The order dated 8.3.91 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shillong in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1989 is the subject matter under challenge in this revision petition under section 397,401 and/or 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts of the prosecution case in a short compass are as follows.

2. Due to infiltration of refugees from Bangladesh into the State of Assam, there was great resentment by the people of Assam particularly the different student associations/organisations. The All Assam Students Union called bandhs, hartals and picketings and demanded deportation of refugees and foreign nationals. On 18.1.80, a large picketing was organised in Duliajan in the district of Dibrugarh and the police resorted to firing where students were killed and many others injured. The students were of the view that Mr. Parthasarathy, Commissioner of Upper Assam Division, Jorhat, was responsible for Duliajan firing. According to the prosecution, Shri Abhijit Sarma, the present petitioner No. 2 issued a statement through local newspaper demanding judicial-enquiry against the Commissioner, Mr. Parthasarathy in connection with the North Lakhimpur GR Case No.25 (S) 81, where one Shri Gagan Dutta was arrested and a diary was recovered from his possession which indicated that the students blamed all non-Assamese Administrative Officers responsible for the said incident. During the investigation, it is revealed that the present petitioners along with other 4 (four) persons had been meeting together and making plan for elimination of Mr. Parthasarathy and further., the said accused persons have been found procuring arms, ammunition and explosives and on 5.4.81, the accused persons planted a hand grenade to be operated for explosion through a special device in the chair of Mr. Parthasarathy and, on 6.4.81, when the said Mr. Parthasarathy came to office and occupied the chair, the grenade exploded resulting to his ultimate death. During the investigation, it is alleged that cogent and reliable evidence have been found pin-pointing the active participation of the above named accused persons in the commission of the crime. After the investigation is over, the accused persons including the present 3 (three) petitioners have been charge-sheeted under section 120B read with section 302IPC and section 5 of the Expolsives Substances Act. Two separate charge sheets have also been filed against the accused Pradip Hazarika and Niren Sarma (petitioner No. 1) for committing the offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act. Both the cases aroses in the State of Assam but the trial is/was taken up in the Court of Sessions Judge at Shillong under the Order of the Hon' ble Supreme Court of India. After the commitment, the accused persons including the present 3 (three) petitioners appeared before the Court of the Sessions Judge at Shillong and made a prayer for discharging them from the charges levelled against them.

3. According to the defence, the present petitioner No. 1 Shri Niren Sarma was charge-sheeted separately under section 25 of the Arms Act and the said case is to be tried by a competent Magistrate and not by the Sessions Judge and the alleged unlawful possession of the arms has nothing to do with the killing of Mr. Parthasarathy so as to form the same transaction and, as such, there cannot be a joint trial of the case under section 25 of the Arms Act with the main case of murder under section 302 of the IPC.

4. It is also the case of the defence that, though the charge sheet was submitted as against the petitioner No.l (Niren Sarma) under section 25 of the Arms Act, nothing was recovered from him and that, though the present 3 (three) accused petitioners were charge-sheeted by the CBI alongwith the others under section 302 read with section 120B of the IPC and section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, no explosives substances were recovered from anyone of them and, as such, there is no material on record for framing charges against these

Click Here to Read the rest of this document