1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Balu Lal. Versus State of Rajasthan. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No..631/2007 ... Date of Order: July 26, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr. V.R. Mehta, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT: This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code” hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 30-6-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chittorgarh (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Sessions Case No., 78/2006, whereby the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 115, 120-B and 506 IPC. 2 I have herd learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned framing the charge and the Challan papers. One Nand Ram Jat lodged an FIR No. 378/2006 on 5- 11-2006 with the Police Station, Chanderiya for the offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act against co-accused Shiv Lal. However, on investigation, the police filed Challan for the offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act against co-accused Shiv Lal and under Sections 115, 506 and 120-B, IPC against present petitioner Balu Lal and co-accused Moti Lal and Narain. Aggrieved by the impugned order framing the charge, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the FIR, the first informant stated that in the intervening night of 4th and 5th November, 2006, while he was sleeping at his well, one person came and awoke him. That person was having a sword in his hand. On being asked, he disclosed his name as Shiv Lal. When asked why he had come in the night, he stated that he came to kill him. On this, a report for the offence under Section 4/25of the Arms Act was registered against co-accused Shiv Lal. The sword was recovered from co- accused Shiv Lal. The police recorded the statements of Nand Lal Jat, Kailash and Jeetmal under Section 161 of the Code. The 3 first informant Nand Lal Jat stated in his statement under Section 161 of the Code that he suspects petitioner Balu Lal and his brother-in-law co-accused Moti Lal have sent co-accused Shiv Lal to kill him. Similar is the statement of Kailash Chandra suspecting the petitioner having sent co-accused Shiv Lal to commit murder of complainant Nand Lal Jat. All the three witnesses stated that they have doubt that the petitioner and co-accused Moti Lal and Narain had sent co-accused Shiv Lal to kill complainant Nand Lal. Suspicion cannot take place of the proof. The entire case set up by the first informant and the witness against present petitioner Balu Lal, co-accused Moti Lal and Narain is based only on suspicion. There is no foundation that the petitioner and other co-accused Moti Lal and Narain conspired to cause the death of complainant. Even if the material available on record is taken on its face value and remain uncontroverted, in my view essential ingredients for constituting the offences under Sections 115, 506 and 120-B, IPC are not made out. There is absolutely no material, on the basis of which it can be presumed that the petitioner committed the offences, for which the trial Court framed the charges. In the circumstances, therefore, the impugned order, qua the petitioner, deserves to be set aside. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The 4 impugned order, qua present petitioner Balu Lal, is set aside and he stands discharged of the offences under Sections 115, 506 and 120-B, IPC. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs