S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.358/2010 Virendra @ Vijendra Pal Vs. The State of Raj. & Anr. Dated : 07.04.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, PP for the State. *** Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the order dated 12th March, 2010 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur ordered to frame charge in the offences under Sections 323, 324, 307, 382 read with Section 34 and 341 of IPC against the accused persons namely Nagendra Singh, Babloo @ Dagru and Virender @ Vijendra Pal. Heard the learned counsel for the accused revisionist, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and carefully perused the impugned order. Learned counsel for the revisionist took me through the First Information Report, the statements of the witnesses and the impugned order dated 12th March, 2010 and canvassed that the name of the accused Virendra @ Vijendra Pal does not figure in the FIR. The complainant is alleged to have been assaulted by three accused persons who were later on identified to be Amir Hasan @ Amir Khan, Nagendra and Babloo. During -2- investigation, the complainant identified these accused persons during the identification parade, but neither the complainant nor any other witness alleged the accused Virendra to have assaulted upon the complainant. There is not even a shred of evidence on record, on the basis of which the charge for the aforesaid offences could be framed against him. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law and as such the same deserves to be set aside in respect of the accused revisionist. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has fairly conceded that there is no evidence against the accused Virendra on record and he has been made an accused on the information supplied by co-accused Babloo @ Dagru and Nagenra Singh. He has been made an accused in this case by police on the basis of cell call detail. At the very outset, it is very relevant to record that the statements of co-accused persons, during investigation, against any person is not admissible in evidence. Secondly, the name of the accused Virendra does not figure in the FIR nor any other witness or the complainant during investigation stated that the complainant was assaulted upon by the accused Virendra @ Vijendra Pal also. The matter was argued at the time of framing charge by the learned counsel -3- for the accused Virendra but learned trial Court also utterly failed to discuss the role of Virendra in the impugned order. Though the order runs into two and half pages but nothing therein suggests that the accused Virendra was involved in the commission of alleged offences. It seems that the learned trial court without application of mind, in routine has passed the order of framing charge for the aforesaid offences against the accused revisionist Virendra @ Vijendra Pal and in view of such position, the charge order in respect of the accused revisionist Virendra deserves to be set aside. The impugned charge order dated 12th March, 2010 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur city, Jaipur is set aside in respect of the accused revisionist Virendra @ Vijendra Pal Singh. The learned trial Court is directed to afford an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and pass an order afresh. Any observation made by this Court in this order shall not influence or cause prejudice to learned trial Court while passing the order of framing charge. In view of above, the criminal revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J.