P.C. Thereafter respondents 1 and 2 moved the Sessions Judge and the High Court for anticipatory bail but failed.
P.C. Regarding the murder of one Satish, whose, grand father is the appellant in the first appeal the investigation was made over to the C.I.D., Jaipur from the police authorities of Todabhim on account of ineffective investigation by the latter.
P.C. for quashing the charge.
As the Hig Court allowed the application and quashed the charge, these appeals, one by the deceaseds grand father and the other by the State, have companye to be filed.
The second statement of Ramji Lal materially differs from his first statement and as such numberreliance can be placed on the second statement wherein respondents 1 to 3 are set out as companyspirators to the murder of Satish.
P.C. has been recorded twice, the second statement being recorded by the C.I.D. after it had taken over the investigation.
As regards the number mention of the date of recording of the statement of Sravan Lal, a finding can be rendered on the omission only after the C.I.D. offices who recorded the statement is given opportunity to explain the reason for the omission.
After investigating the case, the C.I.D. laid challan against six persons including respondents 1 to 3 for offences of murder and criminal companyspiracy to murder.
The limited question for companysideration in these appeal a is whether the High Court has erred in quashing the charge framed under Section 302 read with Section 120B I.P.C. against respondents 1 to 3 by the Sessions Judge in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.
Natarajan, J. Leave granted.
Heard companynsel for the parties.
As to how much acceptance has to be given to the investigation done by the C.I.D. and the statements of witnesses recorded by its officers is a matter which can be determined only after the trial is held and the witnesses and the investigating officer adduce their evidence on oath.
Respondents 1 to 3 moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.
The statement of Sravan Lal recorded by the Addl.
The reasons given by the High Court for quashing the chagrge against respondents 1 to 3 may be summarised as under The statement of witness Ramji Lal under Section 161 Cr.
Respondents 1 and 2, it would appear, were absconding and hence, proclamation had to be made against them under Section 82 Cr.
