- (1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 15.10.2011 of Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby charge under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC has been framed against the petitioner. The impugned order reads thus: "Arguments on charge heard. Learned defence counsel has argued that no prima facie case is made out against accused Mehar Chand and he is entitled to be discharged. This case was registered on the complaint of Virender Singh, wherein he alleged that accused Bijender shot dead his sister Kavita in his presence. During investigation, accused Bijender suffered disclosure statement that he and accused Mehar Chand had hatched a criminal conspiracy to kill Kavita and in furtherance of that conspiracy, accused Mehar Chand, provided a country made pistol to him with which he caused death of Kavita. Similar disclosure statement was made by accused Mehar Chand. There can be no direct evidence of the criminal conspiracy. It is settled law that charge can be framed even on the grave suspicion. Learned defence counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and anr., 2010 1 RCR(Cri) 826 wherein it was held that if two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in the conviction of acquittal. But this authority is not applicable in the present case as the facts of the present case are not identical with the facts of that case. In the considered opinion of this court, a prima facie case for the commission of offence punishable under sections 120-B and 302 read with section 120-B IPC against both the accused and under section 25 of the Arms Act against accused Bijender is made out."
(2.) A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that co-accused of the petitioner while making his disclosure statement has clearly stated that he and the petitioner had hatched a criminal conspiracy to kavita and in furtherance of that conspiracy, accused Mehar Chand, provided a country made pistol to him with which he caused death of Kaita It could not be disputed that the petitioner also made disclosure statement similar to the aforesaid statement made bye accused Bijender.
(3.) In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order. Dismissed.;