Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

26. Arguing on behalf of A-3 Amardeep Singh Gill and A-4 Alok Khanna, Mr. I.U. Khan, Advocate has fully supported the arguments on behalf of the other accused that in the present case, there is not even an iota of evidence with the prosecution to show that there was any conspiracy between A-1 to A-5 for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC nor there is any evidence to suggest that they shared any common intention for her murder. Learned counsel arguing in Crl.R.46/2001 on behalf of A-3 has prayed that he be discharged of the offences under Section 201 and 120-B IPC. According to him, A-4 had no telephonic talks with A-1 either prior to the occurrence or after the occurrence and as such, he had played on role at all and was not liable to be charged for any offence. There is no evidence against him under Section 212 IPC even and the removal of vehicle of A-1 from the spot did not attract Section 201 IPC as it did not amount to causing disappearance of the evidence. He also submits that the allegation of escorting A-1 out of the Cafe by A-2 to A-5 was not at all an incriminating piece of evidence as like many others, the accused were also moving out of the Cafe after the firing incident. It is submitted that mere fact that A-4 had given his car to A-3 for taking A-2 to the spot, does not link him with any offence under Section 201 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC because there is nothing with the prosecution to show that A-4 had given his car to A-3 knowing that the purpose of the visit was to remove the car of A-1 from the spot. Learned counsel submits that the contention of learned counsel for the State that A-1 had loaded his pistol in his Tata Safari in the presence of other co-accused, is based on conjectures only. He has relied upon the judgments in (1) Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1972 Crl.L.J.329, (2) State of Karnataka vs. L.Muniswamy & Others, , (3) , (4) Madhavrao JiwaJirao Scindia & Another etc. Vs. Sambhjirao Chandrojirao Ange & Ors., , (5) Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi. Advocate Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijia & Others, , (6) L.K.Advani & Others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1997)7 JCC 294, (7) M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Others, 1998 Crl.L.J. 1. He submits that at the stage of framing of charge, prosecution evidence is not to be taken as a gospel truth and judicial mind has to be applied as framing of a charge affects the personal liberty of an accused. He argues that ends of justice are higher than the ends of law and the Courts must evaluate the material on record before framing charge. Learned counsel has also relied upon judgments in Vijyan Vs. State of Kerala, , Saju Vs. State of Kerala, Air 2001 (January) SC 175, Om Prakash etc. Vs. The State of Haryana & Another, 1979 Crl. L.J. SC 857 and P.K.Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala, Crimes 1994(3) SC 850 to contend that existence of a criminal conspiracy cannot be inferred on the basis of suspicions, surmises or conjectures. For arguing that no offence under Section 201 read with Section 120-B IPC is made out against A-3 and A-4, he relies upon the judgments in Jogta Kikla Vs. The State, and Jit Singh & Others Vs. The State, .