VINOD PRASAD,J. - (1.) THE above two proceedings have been initiated by co-accused in the same S.T. No. 126 of 2009, State v. Dev Sharma and others, relating to Crime No. 69 of 2000, under sections 307, 120-B, I.P.C., P.S. Rabupura, District G.B. Nagar pending before Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Court No. 3, G.B. Nagar and since relief sought in both the above pro­ceedings relates to framing of charge and/or discharge hence both the cases were clubbed together and are being de­cided by this common order.
(2.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner Naresh is against the order of framing charge dated 5.2.2010, under sections 307/120-B, I.P.C. whereas in Criminal Revision No. 512 of 2010, five revisionists (Dev Sharma, Jugal Kishore, Nahar Singh, all real sibling brothers, being son of late Chaturbhuj Sharma), Kanchhi lal Sharma and Hari Kishan (both the real brothers, being son of late Murari lal Sharma) are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.1.2010 passed by the trial Judge by which he has refused to discharge them from aforementioned offences, which revisionist had claimed through their discharge application Paper No. 6 Kha. Before proceeding further, back­ground factual matrix indicate that on 26.6.2000 at 8.45 a.m., informant Harish Chandra accompanied with his brother Govardhan Sharma (injured) were proceed­ing on their bicycles from their village Bhaipur towards Rabupura, hamlet and when they reached near Rajwaha Khera, culvert they were surrounded by covillagers Naresh, Girish Kumar and Chhotu accompanied with another accused Netra Pal, resident of village Sauda, Habibpur, Khurja Dehat all armed with country made pistols. Shouting instigation Naresh along with Chhotu and Girish Kumar shot at Govardhan Sharma with an intention to murder him and thereby caused him three fire arm injuries. Infor­mant Harish Chandra raised hue and cry, which attracted Balli, Bhajan lal, Udai Chand towards scene of the incident and spotting approaching witnesses shooters escaped from the crime spot towards Rustampur brandishing their country made pistols. Injured was rushed to the police station Rabupura, where, the same 1 day at 9.15 a.m., informant eye-witness Harish Chandra lodged a FIR against four named accused Naresh, Netra Pal, Girish Kumar and Chhotu as Crime No. 69 of 2000, under section 307, I.P.C., P.S. Rabu­pura, District G.B. Nagar.
(3.) INVESTIGATION into the crime com­menced, and in their interrogatory state­ments under section 161 informant and injured named only above four accused, Naresh, Chhotu, Girish Kumar and Netra Pal, as the main malefactors, who had committed the crime because of motive that wheat crop on a disputed agriculture field was got harvested by the informant and T injured. In respect of that agricultural field, there was a litigation going on between Nahar Singh, Dev Sharma and Kanchhi lal Sharma on the one side and informant and his brother on the other side. Another eye witness, Balli also supported informant's case and named only aforementioned four accused as the culprits, who had orchestrated the crime. It transpires that during investigation, investigatory statement of the informant was inked for the second t time, under section 161, Cr.P.C, who in this second round exonerated Girish Kumar S/o Kanchhi lal Sharma from his complicity in the crime and denied his in­volvement into the offence. It further transpires that pending investigation, two affi­davits, vide Annexure No. 5, were filed before S.O., P.S. Rabupura, District G.B. Nagar on 15.7.2000 by Ram Niwas S/o Momraj and Dinesh Kumar S/o Murari lal in which they testified that on 11.6.2000, fifteen days prior to the incident at 6-7 p.m. when they were passing by in front of the house of Dev Sharma, they were called by his son Chhotu. At that moment, they wit­nessed that on an erected platform in front of house of Dev Sharma, he (Dev Sharma), Nahar Singh, Jugal Kishore, Kanchhi lal Sharma, Hari Kishan, Chhotu, Girish Kumar, Naresh and Netra Pal (revisionist) were conspiring amongst themselves in a very loud voice that Govardhan Sharma (injured) is very clever and after instituting prosecution, he had got their crop har­vested because of his influence and he will not allow them to succeed in the Court case and, therefore, there is no way out but to remove him from their way. They were also yelling out that Govardhan Sharma got their enormous money wasted in the litigation and if he is done to death, they will not have to go to the Court. They were also yelling that after death of Govardhan Sharma, they will get back their agriculture land and if he remains alive they will never regain it. It was further testified in those affidavits that those persons were shouting simultaneously that they will get rid of Govardhand Sharma because their sons have now lost patience and they have got sufficient arms with them. It was also testi­fied that because of faux pas and temerity they allowed Govardhan Sharma to live. Both the affidavits of Dinesh Kumar and Ram Niwas are of identical contents. After these, affidavits were tendered statements of Dinesh Kumar and Ram Niwas, under section 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they not only repeated their versions men­tioned in their affidavits but went a head by stating that when they tried to overhear the conversations further then they were threatened by them with dire conse­quences. In their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., they therefore stated that be­cause of the aforesaid reason, they have not divulged the said utterances to anybody in the village. In such factual background ini­tially after concluding investigation, I.O. laid a charge sheet, on 9.8.2000, against six accused Naresh, Chhotu, Netra Pal, Nahar Singh, Jugal Kishore and Hari Kishan but subsequently, he filed a supplementary charge sheet on 7.11.2000 against rest of the two accused Dev Sharma and Kanchhi Lal Sharma. What is important and noticeable is that in none of the two charge sheets, Ram Niwas and Dinesh Kumar were cited as prosecution witnesses who had given affidavits regarding the alleged conspiracy hatched up by the accused revisionists.;