W THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIIASPUR^C.IL Crim. Rev. No. ^°j /2000 Applicants: \^.^"..--"'^ ^••y ,0^ ..••^^..- ^' /" ^-^o' "CF'0'OOo68b988 1. ICishan aged about 29 yrs. S/o Rajkumar Aganval. 2. Rajkumar aged about 66 yrs. S/o Kashiram Agarwal. 3. Shanker aged about 32 yrs. S/o Rajkumar Agarwal. 4. Smt. Vimala Devi aged about 65 yrs. w/o Rajkumar Agarwal. All residents of Tilda, Neora, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS. Non-applicant: State of Chhattisgarh, through Dist. Magistrate, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.. Criminal Revision u/ss. 397 and 401 Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973. ;~ XI-HC-22 3:l?^l^FT f^iicb 371^T 5^^w ^Tf^cT •3%r^pnwr/ 'qg@|®{jQBaB3g^ CHHATTIS&ARH ,BILASPUR , 3nip?T ^^SK Cr .Revi sion • No •19/2000 J41Ndl *44icb7<<*^"^'** *'"""<'*'*^'W( 199 •l^ar' 27-11-2QOQ. Shri Bhi shma Kipg er , 1] Dr < N ,&<»Shukla, learne<3 Heard, Being aggrieved by tJ^ by the learned Special Jud^ Sessions Trial No,250/2000^ this revision pretition subGQ available in the record to the pffence, therefore, th^ Learned counsel for 1 the letters on which they ^ hand-writing pf fiteceased S^ of the deceased were deman^ marriage expenses and in t1& do ctdr did not give any o^ o£ the petitioners deserve^ Learned counsel for adjiilssion, - So far as the letteei i ;. :'/ — ' ttle deceased has c.1early s1 forged or in any case was ] <^l<t{^i<%^ «ttNmf^f 1^IE^' <fa^< '^^P#t3iT^ earned counsel for petitionerSe Dy .advoc at e G eneral ,for the State• e order dated 9 •1O.2000 , passed ;e (Atrocities),Raipur, in the petitioneps have filed - litjbing that there is no evldence Ifindthat they have committed *y deserve to be discharged. ' |he p etiftoners submits that \ • ; ' ^'. ' • '. • ^ • ire placing reliance arein "b^e indhya arid as family members Ling Bs.2,0p,000/- towards the ^e first gost mortenr report the r |inion abwi'fc cau^e of death, ^each |to be di^Kar^ed* | j^e Statel^as ^fposed the is concernet, fhe brother of ated -tha1;Y the ^Ydo cum^nt is 'esult of coe^cion and pressure^ Rit <t 1; !; \ 3fli^l ^5|ch^( ^C<^<S8^ ) ^n^r^r f<TlJcb 3TT^T »*ii<=b <M^a Contd* 27«11.2000. Subbu, n^i <flF^^l ^<1T^<•^f -2- jK^egarding payment of Rs<2^ ^^the complaint made by himself, _it is stated to SGirie anonymous p-erson wa^ -and on asking^ the nam©,..^ di sconnecting the pho-ne ^ in the letter/complaiHt-1j person or particular famj| complainant side was mak^ So far as cause of death the F.S.L^ report^ it in the vis&s^Aluminium Pl| Present is not a evidence to support the a case where facts are appreciated at the conclijision I find no reason is dismissed^ cbi^f<rt<flri 'WT^ff ^f Hs^ <n»t<^i< ^ 3Frf^R STT^r woijild |00,000/-^ |the petitioner \ |the poltce that: maKing. the calls i i ~V \e was alvreys It. is not 'said |hat some particular !ly member of the |ng telephonic calls^ is concernedy from clearly app ear that ^osphtde was found^ case where there is no 4harge, but present is r^quired to be finally of the trial. to interfere. The peti-tion Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice k. -<^ L