From the discussions in the order under challenge it is patent that the learned single Judge has sifted the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 in the light of the autopsy, report Ex.
The operative portion of the order reads as follows In view of what has been ordered above the learned companynsel for the petitioners prays that without prejudice to the pleas which the petitioners may like to take after the recording of the medical evidence, the present petition be dismissed as withdrawn.
2000 Supp 4 SCR 270 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted.
On a perusal of the said order it appears that the High Court disposed of the revision petition accepting the suggestions made by the companynsel for the petitioners accused and the companynsel representing the State that the Addl.
Consequently, it is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sessions Judge may be directed to first record the medical evidence in the case and till the recording of such evidence presence of Gyan Devi and Raj Sehgal i.e. respondents land 2 herein in Court be exempted as they would number be required for the purposes of identification and they can be effectively defended even in their absence.
Sessions Judge and also seeking quashing of the charge under Section 304/34 P.C. framed against them.
Gain Devi, on or about 26.11.91 at a H.N.N 11B/11, Dilshad Garden, both in furtherance of companymon intention caused the death of Sudesh with intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death or with the knowledge that your act was likely to cause her death and thereby companymitted an offence of culpable homicide number amounting to murder punishable under section 304 IPC read with 34 IPC and within my companynizance.
Sessions Judge recorded the evidence of the doctors i.e. Dr. S.K. Verma PW 1 , Dr. Nagendra Prasad PW 2 , Dr. V.V. Gupta PW 3 and V.P. Gupta PW 5 .
P.C. assailing the legality of the order of the Addl.
PW I A, discussed the testimony of the doctors, taken numbere of the order sheet dated 3rd July, 1999 of the Trial Court in which the statement made by Ms. Lata Sharma, A.P.P. appearing for the State that numberother medical evidence is to be produced by the prosecution and has recorded the finding which reads obviously there is absolutely numberevidence on record to suggest that aforesaid injury number 4 in Ex.
Sudesh.
Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor representing the State informed the Court that the prosecution has numberother medical evidence to be led in the case.
Thereafter, the accused persons filed an application under Section 482 Cr.
PW l A was in any way responsible for causing meningitis which disease has been opined by PW 1 to be the cause of death of said Smt.
The charge under Section 304/34 I.P.C. which is relevant for the purpose of this proceeding is to the following effect And secondly, that you Veer Bhan Gulati and Smt.
The learned single Judge accepted the suggestion and accordingly issued direction to the Addl.
The said order is under challenge in this appeal filed by the state.
Thereafter an application was filed on behalf of the accused persons before the learned trial Judge seeking their discharge from the offence under Section 304/34 I.P.C. which was dismissed by the order dated 14 May, 1999.
The said petition was allowed by the learned single Judge of the High Court and the charge framed under Section 304/34 P.C. against respondents 1 and 2 was quashed by the order passed on 7 December, 1999.
Sudesh, who was the daughter in law of respondent 1 and wife of respondent 2, the police made an investigation and laid a challan against the three respondents under Section 173 2 Cr.
In companypliance with the direction in the High Court order, the Addl.
Sessions Judge to record the medical evidence first and till that part of the prosecution evidence is companycluded to exempt the aforementioned accused persons from personal appearance in Court.
On receipt of a report regarding the murder of one Smt.
P.C. ?
Shortly after the said order was passed, the accused persons filed a revision being Criminal Revision No.l 13 of 1996 in the High Court seeking quashing of the charge under Section 304/34 I.P.C. which was disposed of by the order passed on 12.12.1997.
P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, on companysideration of the challan and the papers filed along with it, framed charges under Section 498 A/34 IPC against all the three respondents and under Section 304/34 I.P.C. against the respondents land 2 vide the order dated 19 February, 1996.
