ORDER

1. This criminal revision under sections 397, 401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, Distt. Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.41/2019, by which the charges under sections 323/34, 307/34, 302/34 of IPC have been framed.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that a Dehati Nalishi was lodged by Shailendra Dangi that on 4.5.2019 he along with his friends Ankit Panthi, Abhishek Raghuvanshi and Anshul Sharma had gone to Bombay Vilas Dhabha for having their meals. It was around 09:30 in the night. Co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel, his friend Shubham Raghuvanshi and Roshan Rajpoot, came on a Scooty. They came to the complainant and started alleging as to why they are staring at them and on this issue, fight took place between the parties. Shubham assaulted on the forehead of the complainant Shailendra Dangi, as a result, he sustained injuries. Accordingly, he was taken to medical store for his treatment. Accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel, Roshan and Shubham also came on the Scooty and the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel fired a gunshot causing injury on the chest of Anshul Sharma. Co-accused Roshan Rajpoot assaulted Ankit Panthi by knife and Shubham Raghuvanshi also scuffled with the complainant. Incident was witnessed by Rahul Baghel, Sanjay Gupta, Ramu Pal and Sachin Namdev who were standing on the spot. It is submitted that during the investigation, the police recorded the memorandum of the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel, who stated that the country made pistol and three live cartridges were purchased by him from the applicant for consideration of Rs.5,000/- and the country made pistol and two live cartridges are kept in his house, which were accordingly seized. It is submitted that except this part of the memorandum of the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel, there is no other evidence against the applicant to show that he was ever involved in commission of offence. Even assuming that the applicant had sold the country made pistol and three cartridges to the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel, still then he cannot be charged for offence under sections 323/34, 307/34 and 302/34 of IPC. Memorandum of the co-accused which does not lead to discovery of fact, is not admissible under sections 25, 26 of the Evidence Act.

3. Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. However, it is fairly conceded that except the memorandum of the co-accused Chhotu @ Sanjeev Baghel to the effect that he had purchased the country made pistol and three live cartridges from the applicant, there is no other evidence against the applicant to implicate him in commission of offence.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The trial Court has framed the following charges:

^^U;k;ky;&r`rh; vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] xatcklkSnk]
ftyk fofn'kk ¼e/; Áns'k½
l= Ádj.k Øaekd&41@2019
vkjksi i=
¼vkt fnukad 20-12-2019 dks fufeZr½
eSa lrh'k paæ ekyoh;] r`rh; vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] xatcklkSnk ftyk fofn'kk ¼eŒÁŒ½ vki vfHk;qDr jktw mQZ jktsUæ tSu iq= feV~Bwyky tSu mez 52 fuoklh jktkSnk jksM+ cklkSnk ij fuEukuqlkj vkjksi vf/kjksfir djrk gaw%&
1- vkius mDr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij lg&vfHkqDr NksVw mQZ latho c?ksy ,oa 'kqHke j?kqoa'kh ds lkFk feydj vkgr 'kSysUæ d¨ LosPN;k migfr dkfjr djus dk lkekU; vk'k; fufeZr fd;k] mDr lkekU; vk'k; ds vxzlj.k esa lg&vfHkqDr NksVw mQZ latho c?ksy ,oa jks'ku jktiwr us vkgr 'kSysUæ ds lkFk ekjihV dj] mls LosPN;k migfr dkfjr dh vkSj ,slk djds vkius og vijk/k fd;k] tks èkkjk 323@34 HkkŒnŒlaŒ ds rgr~ n.Muh; gksdj bl U;k;ky; ds fopkj.k esa gSA
2- vkius mDr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij lg&vfHkqDr 'kqHke j?kqoa'kh ,oa N¨Vw mQZ latho o?ksy ds lkFk feydj vkgr vafdr iaFkh dh lk'k; e`R;q dkfjr djus dk lkekU; vk'k; fufeZr fd;k vkSj mDr lkekU; vk'k; ds vxzlj.k esa vkius@lg&vfHkqDrx.k us vkgr vafdr iaFkh dks ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa Ágkj dj pkdw ls pksVsa igqapkbZ fd ;fn mDr pksVksa ds dkj.k vkgr vafdr iaFkh dh e`R;q gks tkrh rks vki gR;k ds vijk/k ds nk