ORDER

This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 07.10.2023 and the charges framed thereunder by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, District Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.374/2023. Under that order, the learned Court below had framed the charges against the present applicants of Sections 294, 302, 325, 323, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of this criminal revision are that a charge-sheet was filed against applicants and two more persons under Sections 302, 323, 294, 506, 341, 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, for the offence committed on 12.03.2023 at around 11:00 - 11:30 pm in Gram Lohari (Radha), Police Station Majhauli, district Jabalpur. In this crime Kanchan Yadav was murdered by causing him a gun shot injury and Aniruddha Yadav sustained injuries. According to the prosecution, these injuries to Aniruddha Yadav were caused by the applicants.

3. The grounds raised herein are that the learned trial Court committed error in framing charges against applicants with the aid of 34 IPC;

they did not have any common intention with the co-accused persons; the injuries were caused without any premeditation; the Dehati Marg intimation did not name the applicants and their names were later surfaced in Dehati Nalishi and this fact reveals that they were falsely implicated in the case; admittedly, a counter case was registered against the complainant side. It is prayed that no offence punishable under the aforesaid provisions of law is made out against the applicants, therefore, they deserve to be discharged.

4. The criminal revision has been opposed by the objector and also by the State.

5 . Both the parties have been heard and the record has been perused.

6. It appears from the arguments submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are requesting for the relief of discharge simply for the reason that they were not named in the Dehati Marg intimation, but that was the most initial stage of enquiry and by that time the FIR was also not registered. This intimation was given with a limited object to inform the police about the unnatural death of deceased Kanchan Yadav. Obviously, the enquiry had to follow on the basis of this intimation, but before that enquiry could conclude, a Dehati Nalishi was recorded and on its basis FIR was registered.

The applicants are maned in the Dehati Nalishi. Thus, no inference of innocence can be drawn merely on the basis of marg intimation report which had a very limited objective.

7. The statements of prosecution witness recorded during investigation under the provision of Section 161 Cr.P.C. reflect the active participation of applicants in the commission of crime by causing injury to one member of the complainant party. The facts mentioned in these police statements and other documents have to undergo the scrutiny of veracity and at this stage these statements cannot be brushed aside or ignored.

8. Considering the above discussed facts, the prayer made by the applicants for their discharge in the criminal case is rejected and this criminal revision is dismissed.

9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court below for necessary information.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE sjk Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHARAN JEET KAUR Signing time: 4/18/2024 4:37:01 PM