Kalu Ram and Another vs State of U.P.

B.K. Rathi, J.—This criminal revision u/s 397/401, Code of Criminal Procedure., has been directed against the order dated 28.10.1998 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in S.T. No. 663 of 1998, by which he rejected the request of the Applicants for their discharge and framed charges for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307. I.P.C.

The order for dismissal of the revision was passed today, but before the order could be signed, the learned Counsel for the revisionists appeared and argued the matter. I have, therefore, heard him and have also heard the A.G.A. and perused the impugned order.

It is contended that Criminal Misc. application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure was filed which was allowed on 18.1.1998 and the copy of the said order has been filed. In that order, it was directed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall pass orders regarding framing of the charge after hearing the Applicants and considering the material placed before the Court. It is also contended that the said order has not been complied with.

I have considered the contentions. The order refusing to discharge of the Applicants and framing of the charges for the offences Is a very detailed order and the entire evidence has been dealt with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

In this case, three persons were murdered and there are several injured persons. The Applicants, no doubt, were not nominated in the first information report, but in the first information report, it is mentioned that two accused were Sala and Bahnoi of Suresh accused. In the statement u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure all the injured witnesses have also nominated the Applicants and referred them as Sala and Bahnoi of Suresh. It may be mentioned that it is not denied that the Applicants are Sala and Bahnoi of Suresh.

The contentions of the Applicants were considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. They were, that they were not nominated in the first information report and also in the statements u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure by the injured witnesses and on their application, an order was passed by Court for their test identification, but it was not got conducted and as such their identity has not been established. It is also contended that the plea of alibi should also be considered.

The entire evidence is not to be scrutinised meticulously at the time of the framing of the charges. The Applicants are nominated by the witnesses and it is sufficient ground for proceeding against them and framing of the charges, as it is a very heinous crime in which three persons lost life and there are certain injured persons. The evidence with regard to the plea of alibi will be considered at the stage of the judgment and cannot be considered at the stage of charge. The contention that the directions given by this Court in the order dated 18.1.1998 have not been complied with is not correct. The learned Sessions Judge has categorically mentioned the evidence that was found against the Applicants and it was sufficient for proceeding against them. He has, therefore, rightly framed charges against the Applicants.

It may be mentioned that the crime in question is a very heinous crime and the Applicants appear to have been nominated as Sala and Bahnoi of Suresh accused and they are approaching this Court against every order to cause hindrance in the trial. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge will proceed with the trial expeditiously.

With the above observations, the revision is dismissed.