- (1.) The accused have filed this revision-petition against the order dated 5/10/1999, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby charge under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and In alternative under S. 306 read with S. 34, I.P.C. has been ordered to be framed against the accused.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that deceased-Manohar Lal was working as an accountant in Firm M/s. Mohan Singh Sucha Singh, Grain Market, Ratia. Accused- Om Parkash (now expired during the pendency of this petition) was one of the partners of the said firm. Accused-Naresh Kumar, relative of accused-Om Parkash, was also working as accountant in the said firm. As per the prosecution version, on 19-5-1998, one Suresh Kumar, who was working in a different factory, had a telephonic conversation with Manohar Lai-deceased. He enquired about sister of accused-Naresh Kumar. The said conversation was overheard by accused-Naresh Kumar on parallel line. He felt aggrieved. He summoned deceased-Manohar Lal and his father Lekh Raj (complainant) in the premises of Jindal Cotton Factory on 20-5-1998 at about 6 p.m. As per the prosecution version, accused- Naresh Kumar and Om Parkash gave beatings to deceased-Manohar Lal and thereafter asked the deceased and his father to leave the factory premises. Subsequently, on the next day, on 21-5-1998, the dead body of deceased-Manohar Lal was found near a petrol pump. Thereupon, on a complaint made by father of the deceased, the police registered the case under S. 302, I.P.C. against the accused.
(3.) During investigation, statements of various persons were recorded by the police. The complainant stated that his son had committed suicide because he felt humiliated, when he was given beatings by the accused. The other witnesses also stated that accused-Om Prakash and Naresh gave beatings to Manohar Lal, who later on committed suicide. On the basis of the evidence collected during the Investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused under Ss. 306, 404 read with S. 34, I.P.C. Subsequently, report of the chemical examiner was received, which shows presence of aluminium phosphide in the viscera. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the said chemical examiner's report, framed the charge against the accused under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and in alternative under S. 306 read with S. 34, I.P.C. Against the said order, the instant revision-petition has been filed.;