Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly argued that in the absence of any evidence against the petitioner of hatching conspiracy or instigating the main accused - Ramniwas Mahla to murder the deceased, the trial court has grossly erred in framing the charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 302/120-B and 302/109 IPC.

In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kehar Singh and Ors. vs. State, AIR 1988 SC 1883, Vijender and Ors. vs. State of Delhi, (1997) 6 SCC 171, Saju vs. State of Kerala AIR 2001 SC 175, Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368, S. Arul Raja vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 8 SCC 233 and in Indra Dalal vs. State of Haryana, (2015) (7 of 18) [CRLR-1242/2019] 11 SCC 31. He has also placed reliance on decisions of this Court as well as of Delhi High Court in A.K Jain vs State of Rajasthan, 2015 (2) Cr.L.R (Raj) and in L.K. Advani Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 1997 Cri LJ 2559 respectively.

The principle of law laid down in the above referred judgments is in conformity with the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Ors., State of Rajasthan vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu and in The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (supra).

So far as other judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the same were passed in appeals filed by the accused therein after their conviction, therefore, these judgments are not relevant in the present controversy as this Court is examining whether the trial court has rightly framed charges against the petitioner or not. The judgment of Delhi High Court in L.K.Advani's case (supra) is regarding some entries in the account books, however, in (15 of 18) [CRLR-1242/2019] my opinion, the same is also not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present controversy.