- (1.) AMAR Saran, J. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists for challenging the order dated 25-5-2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area Act, Lalitpiir, in S. T. No. 32 of 2004 State v. Tilak Singh Yadav and Ors. , under Sections 147, 148, 302/34 I. P. C. rejecting the applicants' prayer for discharge and passing an order dated 4-6-2005 framing charges against them.
(2.) HEARD Sri A. N. Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. An F. I. R. was lodged on 8-10-2002 at 10. 30 a. m. at P. S. Jakhlaun, District Lalitpur, by informant Ratan Singh alleging that on the same day at 9 a. m. , his brothers Mahraj Singh and Kapoor Singh were murdered by the revisionists Tilak Yadav, Pushpendra Singh, Kaptan Singh, Mahendra Singh, Bharat Singh, Yangbir Singh, Satyanarain, Narendra Singh, Lakhan Singh and Kalloo Singh in the field of the deceased. One accused armed with the lathi, two carrying knives and seven accused holding "chankhari" (stones) assaulted the deceased. The F. I. R. named four eye-witnesses, Ratan Singh, Raghuraj Singh, Kripal Singh and Lakhan Singh. It is further mentioned that after the murder of the two deceased, their dead-bodies were thrown in a well by the aforementioned applicants. After submission of the charge- sheet, cognizance was taken in the case by the C. J. M. , Lalitpur, on 26-11-2002. At the stage of committal the revisionists Tilak Singh Yadav submitted an application (Ext. 184 Kha) for re-investigation stating that he was the District President of the Samajwadi Party, Lalitpur, and a Senior lawyer practicing on the commercial side and that he had been falsely implicated. The medical evidence was not properly evaluated. No investigation about the motorcycles and jeeps used in the incident was done, and that the four eye-witnesses were partisan. So far as the two other eye-witnesses were concerned, they were saying that they had deposed earlier because of political pressure, now with the change of Government, they had become free from fear. (Perhaps the reference here was to the Samajwadi Party having become the Ruling Party ). That the revisionist-applicant used to reside with his family members in Lalitpur in his house at the time of incident and was not present at the time of incident. No order was passed by the Court on the application, but several dates were given.
(3.) IT appears that in the meantime, the revisionist Tilak Singh Yadav submitted an application before the D. I. G. , Jhansi range, on 28-10-2003. On the basis of said application, the S. P. Lalitpur, directed Jaiprakash Yadav, S. O. , P. S. Jakhlaun to further investigate the case under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter the Code) after taking permission from the competent Court. Thereafter, the I. O. sought permission for further investigation from the Court. An order was passed by the C. J. M. on 13-1- 2004 permitting further investigation. It appears that the complainant Ratan Singh moved Criminal Misc. Application No. 945 of 2004 before this Court and an order was initially passed staying the operation of the order for further investigation passed by the C. J. M. , Lalitpur, and the I. O. was summoned before this Court. On 20-2-2004 the High Court passed an order disposing of the application in the light of the undertaking given by the Investigating Officer, that he would complete the investigation within 15 days, he would not conduct fresh investigation, but only conduct further investigation in the case and would not change the witnesses or the accused. In pursuance of the said order, the Investigating Officer submitted the case diary after completing the investigation before the C. J. M. The C. J. M. , thereafter committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 7-5-2004.;