This revision is directed against the order dated 13.12.2004 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 443/2004 whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

One Prabha Tiwari, an aged lady, was found murdered in her house in Jabalpur on 9.12.2003. The petitioner is her daughter. The first information report of the incident was lodged by her close relation Rajendra Solakia on the same day at Police Station Kotwali, District Jabalpur. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are being tried for the murder of Prabha Tiwari who lived alone.

The respondents No. 1 and 2 are husband and wife. They have two children namely Sunny and Iti. They belong to Raipur town, which is now in the State of Chhattisgarh. Even so the respondent No. 1 married Bharti, daughter of deceased Prabha Tiwari, at Jabalpur concealing the fact of his subsisting marriage with respondent No.2 and posing himself to be a widower. The marriage is said to have been performed on 19.11.2003 in the Sai Baba Temple, Civil Lines, Jabalpur. Bharti, after marriage, went with respondent No. 1 to Raipur. There she met the respondent No.2 and the two children Sunny and Hi. She was told that the respondent No.2 was the wife of elder brother of respondent No.1. On 8.12.2003 the respondent No. 1 left Raipur with one Krishna Barai (witness who is not traceable) telling Bharti that they were going to Manendragarh, Chhattisgarh. On 9.12.2003 at about 5:00 p.m. Bharti telephoned to Jabalpur for finding out the welfare of her mother. The information she received by her maternal uncle Rajendra Solakia was that someone has assaulted her mother and her condition was very bad. Bharti then immediately telephoned to respondent No. 1 on his mobile, which was received by Krishna Barai.

Until 14.12.2003 there was no clue as to who was responsible for the murder of Prabha Tiwari. During the course of interrogation the Investigating Officer, respondent No.5, found respondent No. 1 frequently using his Reliance Indian Mobile No. 0771-3112640. He then enquired from Bharti as to whether she had received any message from the respondent No. 1 on the date of incident from Manendragarh. On this question being put to Bharti by the respondent No.5, the respondent No. 1 became annoyed and showed expressions of nervousness. The respondent No.5 took into his custody the mobile phone of respondent No.1 in front of the petitioner, Bharti and other relatives. On 17.12.2003 the respondent No. 1 surreptitiously absconded from Jabalpur. He could, however, be arrested by the police after three months on 3.4.2004.

Krishna Barai was called from Raipur for interrogation. His statement was recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 17.12.2003. According to him, he and Purshottam did not go to Manendragarh but came to Katni on the morning of 9.12.2003 by train. He further stated that the respondent No.1 left him on the railway platform with his mobile and asked him to wait there and that he will return after few hours.

During the trial proceedings the petitioner filed an application under section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for further investigation of the entire incident, which has been rejected by the impugned order.

A Single Bench of this Court in the case of Dilip Singh and other v. State of M.P, 1997 (2) JLJ 64 after considering number of decisions has held that the Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to order reinvestigation under section 173 (8) of the Code. Recently, in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and another v. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2004 SC 3114 the Supreme Court has held that every endeavour should be made by the trial Court to see that the trial is fair and it will not be correct to say that it is only the accused who must be fairly dealt with. According to the Supreme Court that would be