- (1.) This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 1.5.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaipur in Cr. Case No. 29/2011 by which charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 302, 364, 346, 193 and 218 IPC.
(2.) The brief facts stated in the petition are that one Dara Singh @ Daria was killed at 5.20 AM on 23.10.2006 by the police officials belonging to Special Operation Group, (SOG). Rajendra Choudhary has lodged the First Information Report No. 396/2006 registered at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur. On 4.11.2006, Sushila Devi widow of Dara Singh also preferred a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate vide complaint No. 9/2006 alleging that for the past many years there had been enmity between her husband and Sukhia Gang. The said gang had kidnapped Sumer Singh Fegedia, a friend of her husband and murdered him. As the other gang was having close association with the Superintendent of Police, SOG, Mr. A. Ponnuchami and to give benefit to other group her husband has been murdered mercilessly and the police have gave it name of encounter. Other allegations have also been made that her husband was declared a most wanted notorious criminal and prize money of Rs. 25,000/- was declared on his arrest and this order has been made by the present petitioner. This complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter on the order of the Apex Court, CBI had registered the First Information Report and investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet for the above offences and the petitioner has been charged as above, hence this petition.
(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the CBI has investigated the matter in a very tainted and fabricated manner just to implicate the petitioner falsely, he has been charged with the aid of Section 120-B IPC but there is no evidence of any conspiracy of the present petitioner with any one of the accused. Initially, the case of the prosecution was that the petitioner has conspired with Mr. R.S. Rathore whereas against Mr. Rathore, initially no charge-sheet has been filed and a supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against him without any further investigation and now the petitioner has been charged that he entered into a conspiracy with other companions who are not named, no charge of conspiracy along with Mr. Rathore has been framed against the petitioner, hence the CBI had come up with an inconsistent plea. The further contention of the petitioner is that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. Allegations against the petitioner is that he recommended for declaration of award on the deceased which are finally ordered by the Director General of Police. He has also recommended interception of some mobile phone numbers including of Dara Singh and he had phone calls with Mr. R.S. Rathore six times from 4.10.2006 to 19.10.2006. The action for declaring award or recommendation for interception of mobile phone were official duty of the petitioner. He was only an intermediary in the proceedings. The S.P. Churu has recommended for declaration of award long back on 18.1.2006, petitioner also recommended for the same and finally DGP has approved the award on 18.10.2006. Same is the story with interception of mobile phone. The file for interception was sent by SP, SOG. He was only an intermediary and after the approval of Home Secretary, the order of interception was taken directly by SOG. Present petitioner was not the head of SOG. He was Additional Director General of Crimes and there were three IGs under him. SOG was part of Special Crime and economic offences wing which was headed by SP (Special Crime and Economic Offences), he was not the immediate head of SOG. There is no material to presume or prima facie show that the petitioner was in conspiracy with Mr. Rajendra Rathore or any member of SOG. Per contra, the contention of the CBI is that the court below has considered the evidence on record under the provisions of Section 227 Cr.P.C. and 228 Cr.P.C., there is no scope under these provisions to weigh the evidence and furthermore in revisional jurisdiction, this Court has only very limited jurisdiction only to consider that no miscarriage of justice should be done and if case is of no evidence then only interference is needed. Admittedly, Daria @ Dara Singh has died a homicidal death on 23.10.2006 CBI came in picture on 9.4.2010 when Sushila Devi, wife of deceased has filed a petition before the Apex Court. Earlier police officer has made the information, Apex Court has ordered for the investigation, the CBI has not shifted any stand but in both the charge-sheets, the stand of CBI is consistent that the present petitioner has hatched conspiracy with Rajendra Singh Rathore and it had been carried out with the aid of Arshad Ali and others. The scope of interference is very limited at the stage of framing charges. Even if weaker than prima facie case exists or if material on record show that the accused might have done the act, the accused should have been charged. The petitioner is guilty of conspiracy and Dara Singh has been murdered in furtherance of conspiracy. There is sufficient evidence to charge the present petitioner. After the phone calls of petitioner and Rajendra Singh Rathore, the SOG has been mobilised and team has been sent for the search of Dara Singh. He has been apprehended with the aid of Vijay Kumar Choudhary handed over to SOG and he has been kept in secret places at Lalvas and thereafter murdered and it has been named as encounter, hence there is ample evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime and no interference is needed.;