JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.-By this common order, revision petition filed against order dated 24.01.2021, passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag, whereby the petitioners have been charged for offences under Section 147, 341, 447, 307, 302 and 120-B IPC, and the application for grant of bail to the petitioners are proposed to be disposed of.

2. Before coming to the grounds urged by the petitioners in the above two petitions, it would be apt to notice the case projected by the prosecution in the charge sheet.

3. On 09.07.2020, a written report was lodged by the complainant before Police Station, Kokernag, alleging therein that he along with his son, Zakir Hussain, were working in their fields situated near Dawoodia Public School, Gohan Vailoo. In the meanwhile, the petitioners including the co-accused came over there and they trespassed into the land of the complainant. It was alleged that the land of the accused party is also situated adjacent to the land of the complainant party. The accused are alleged to have given a beating to Zakir Hussain and in the meantime another son of the complainant, namely, Ishfaq Ahmad Sheikh tried to intervene but he was caught by the accused persons and was thrown on the ground with an intention to kill him whereafter he was beaten up and was given kicks on his abdomen. Said Shri Ishfaq Ahmad Sheikh fell unconscious and the accused persons fled away from the spot. The injured was taken to the hospital where he was declared as brought dead.

4. After registration of the FIR, statements of some of the witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P. C whereas statements of certain other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. After collecting the evidence, the investigating agency came to the conclusion that offences under Section 147, 341, 447, 307, 302 and 120-B IPC stand established against the accused including the petitioners herein and the charge sheet was laid before the trial court.

5. Vide the impugned order dated 24.01.2021 passed by the learned trial court, the charges for offences under Section 147, 341, 447, 307, 302 and 120-B IPC were framed against all the accused including the petitioners herein. While holding so, the trial court observed that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused persons have trespassed into the land of the complainant and committed murder of the deceased. It appears from the trial court record that the statements of as many six eye witnesses have been recorded so far.

6. In the revision petition filed by the petitioners, all of whom happen to be ladies, it has been contended that there are no specific allegations, either in the charge sheet or in the statements of prosecution witnesses, against the petitioners and, as such, there was no occasion for the trial court to frame charges against them. It is further contended that the statements of prosecution witnesses are contradictory and some of the prosecution witnesses have not named the petitioners. It has been further contended that the cause of death of the deceased as given by the doctor is cardiac arrest and, as such, it is not a case of murder.

7. So far as the grounds for grant of bail are concerned, besides urging the aforesaid grounds, it has been urged that the statements of the eye witnesses recorded before the trial court during the trial of the case do not support the prosecution case, inasmuch as these statements are contradictory and no specific role in the alleged crime has been attributed to the petitioners by the prosecution witnesses. It is also contended that the petitioners being ladies are entitled to bail in terms of proviso to Section 437 of Cr. P. C.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record of the trial court.

9. The Sessions Court, while considering the question of framing of charge against an accused is guided by the provisions contained in Section 227 and 228 of the Cr. P. C. The same read as u