Sabina, JPetitioner has filed this revision petition under Sections 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 09.11.2016, whereby charge was framed against him under Section 302/120-B IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case relates to murder of Sarpanch-Ramavtar . Case rests on eye-witness account. Tarachand had also suffered fire arm injuries in the occurrence. As per the eye-witness account, accused Surendra Neetharwal and Surendera Mehla @ Pintu had come to the house of the deceased and had fired a shot at him. Tarachand had come to rescue Ramavtar and he also suffered fire arm injuries. Learned counsel has submitted that the complainant has not levelled any allegation against the petitioner in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or during trial. However, petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. As per the prosecution story, complainant has not spelled out any motive available with the petitioner to have connived with his co-accused with regard to the offence in question.

3. Learned State Counsel and learned counsel for the respondent have opposed the petition.

4. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the husband of the complainant was elected as Sarpanch for the second time. Kirpal Singh & Jagdish Singh were having a grievance against Ramavtar and said that, although, Ramavtar had won the election, but he would be got killed within six months. Ramavtar had been advised to take care. On 25.07.2015, at about 8.30 am, Ramavtar and his driver Tarachand were present in their house. In the mean time, Surendra Neetharwal and Surendera Mehla @ Pintu came on a motorcycle. Ramavtar told the complainant to prepare tea. In the meantime, complainant heard the noise of fire shots and rushed outside. She saw that Surendra Mehla had fired at her husband. Tarachand intervened to save Ramavtar. Both the persons fired at Ramavtar as well as Tarachand and later left the spot on their motorcycle. Ramavtar succumbed to his injuries, whereas Tarachand was got admitted in the hospital for treatment.

5. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he has not been named in the FIR. During investigation, the Investigating Agency arrested the petitioner. As per the prosecution, petitioner had helped his co-accused to purchase weapon from Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner had also helped his co-accused to purchase motorcycle and spectacles. Merely, because petitioner had helped the accused facing trial to purchase a weapon, motorcycle and spectacles would not in itself lead to the inference that the petitioner had also participated in the crime.

6. During the course of arguments, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 have failed to point out any motive available with the petitioner to have helped his co-accused who are facing the trial to commit the crime. Petitioner being a friend of his co-accused, in normal circumstances, could have accompanied his friends at the time of purchase of weapon, motorcycle and spectacles, but this would not lead to the inference that the petitioner had the knowledge, as to, for what purposes, the weapon, motorcycle or spectacles had been purchased. It has been pointed out during the course of arguments, that even during trial, complainant, while appearing in the witness box, was levelled any allegation against the petitioner with regard to his participation in the crime.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, trial Court fell in error in ordering the framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. Although, at the stage of framing of charges, trial Court is required to see, as to whether prima facie, there is sufficient material available on record to order the framing of charge against the accused, but in the present case, prima facie there was no material available on record to order the framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC.

8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 09.11.2016 whereby charge under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC was framed against the petitioner, is set aside.