Amar Saran - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A.
(2.) THIS criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 24.8.2006 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Pilibhit, in S.T. No. 200 of 2006, by which he has refused to discharge the revisionist, as well as the order dated 3.8.2007 framing charges against him under Section 302 I.P.C., and in the alternative, under Section 302/34, I.P.C. The factual background of this case is that there was a dispute between the non-charge-sheeted co-accused Gopal Krishna Saxena over the Block Pramukh elections with Raju Pandey, the brother of the informant Brijesh Pandey. On the date of incident, 21.2.2006, Gopal Krishna Saxena had called Raju Pandey on telephone to his residence. The informant and the witnesses Ram Niwas and Pappu Pandey reached the house of Gopal Krishna Saxena by 9 a.m. alongwith the deceased Raju Pandey. Gopal Krishna was present there alongwith his sons co-accused Rajat Saxena alias Guddu, and the revisionist Sachin Saxea alias Lucky and Tej Bahadur Singh alias Teju. At the commencement of the talks Gopal Krishna asked Raju to restrain his mother from contesting in the Block Pramukh elections, and to leave the seat of the Samajwadi Party for his favoured candidate, the wife of co-accused Tej Bahadur Singh alias Teju. To this suggestion Raju replied that as the party had selected his mother to be the candidate, she would certainly contest the election. This annoyed Gopal, who cried out that Raju should be murdered as otherwise he would not listen. At that point, two sons of Gopal, viz., the revisionist Lucky alias Sachin and Rajat alias Guddu caught hold of Raju and Tej Bahadur and Gopal picked up their revolvers and both fired on the deceased. When the informant and witnesses tried to move forward, then the revisionist and the other non-charge-sheeted accused cried out that if anyone intervened he would be shot dead. Raju Pandey died on the spot inside the house of the revisionist and Gopal Saxena. Thereafter, the accused persons ran away firing their respective weapons. The report of this incident was lodged by the informant Brijesh Pandey at P.S. Puranpur, at Case Crime No. 125 of 2006, under Sections 302, 504 and 506, I.P.C. on 21.2.2006 at 10.15 a.m.
(3.) THEREAFTER, S. I. Rajendra Singh reached the spot and made a spot inspection and collected one empty cartridge of 32 bore, two pieces of cotton wool and one old cloth soaked in blood. He prepared recovery memos of the same. He also conducted the inquest on the dead body of Raju. He recorded the statement of the informant Brijesh Pandey immediately thereafter under Section 161, Cr. P.C. Brijesh Pandey corroborated the version given in the F.I.R. The Investigating Officer also gathered some hearsay information from Pramod Kumar alias Munne and Rajiv Kumar, both residents of mohalla Kayasthan, qasba and P. S. Puranpur, who supported the version mentioned by the informant. Tej Bahadur alias Teju was arrested on 21.2.2006 at 2 p.m. and it was also mentioned in the parcha of the case-diary that as this incident appeared to have been committed as a result of complicity of the accused, hence Section 34 I.P.C. was also added and that he would be conducting the subsequent investigation. On 22.2.2006, the revisionist Lucky was arrested and his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C., recorded. In the statement to the police, he stated that he had shot Raju Pandey with his revolver which he had left on the roof of his house and had run away. On the basis of this statement, the Investigating Officer made an application before the C.J.M. for recording the statement of the revisionist under Section 164, Cr. P.C. However, after examining Lucky the C.J.M. made a note that the revisionist has refused to make any confessional statement. Then the Investigating Officer unsuccessfully searched for the revolver on the roof of the house. On 22.3.2006 itself the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses Ram Niwas and Pappu Pandey who also corroborated the version given by the informant in the F.I.R. The Investigating Officer did not collect any information with respect to this crime after 22.2.2006 and there are only entries in the case-diary of his making efforts for arresting the other accused and their not being present at the places of search and being present elsewhere.;