MANISH PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revisionist/accused has filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 7.2.2013 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (Shri Ravindra Singh) in S.T. No.309/12 framing the charges under Section 109 read with Section 307/34 of IPC against the petitioner.

(2.) In short, the facts of the case are that on 15.5.2012 police Ganjbasoda received information from the informer that co-accused persons had gathered to commit the offence and when the police party reached on the spot of incident and surrounded the co-accused Jitendra Kushwah and Mahendra Sharma then they fired gun shot at the police party. On the basis of the alleged incident a Dehati Nalsi report under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act was registered, on which basis, Crime No.336/12 was registered in the police station. Co-accused Jitendra Kushwah and Mahendra Sharma were arrested. During investigation, the accused Jitu alias Jitendra disclosed to the police under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to this effect that two country made pistol 315 bore and 4 cartridges, 2 pistol and 19 live cartridges were supplied to him by the accused Manish Purohit. Thereafter, the accused Manish Purohit was interrogated and his memorandum under Section 27 was also prepared on 18.5.12 but no recovery of pistol and cartridges has been made from the possession of the accused-Manish Purohit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case there is no prima facie evidence against the accused Manish for framing the charge as stated earlier. He further submits that the petitioner's name has not been mentioned in the FIR. He was not found at the place of occurrence when the alleged incident was committed by the co-accused. Only on the basis of memorandum 27 of the accused Jitu alias Jitendra, the petitioner-Manish Purohit has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned trial Court without considering the recorded evidence properly has framed the charges illegally against the petitioner who was entitled to be discharged in the case. Petitioner's counsel requests to discharge the accused.