ORDER
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
2. This revision is against the order dated 3/4/2003 passed by the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 346/2001 whereby the petition for discharged, filed under Section 227, Cr PC by the petitioners, has been rejected.
3. Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly challenged the impugned order on the ground that even according to the FIR and the materials collected during investigation admittedly the petitioners were not present on the date and time of alleged occurrence and, therefore, no case whatsoever for the commission of the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is made out against them.
4. In order to test the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners it is necessary to examine the allegation in the FIR and the materials collected during investigation recorded in the case diary.
5. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant’s husband was running a STD booth, which was looked after by petitioner No. 1 Bhartendu Singh @ Murari. It is said that Bharatendu Singh was not maintaining the income and expenditure account properly and, therefore, the informant asked Murari to properly maintain the income and expenditure, which was not liked by him. It is said that on 3/8/2001 at about 11.30 a.m. one person along with one Panditji came to the residence of the informant and told her that he had come for fitting regulator. The informant allowed him to enter as he was accompanied by Panditji, who was known to her from before. It is said that the unknown person caught her neck and then she fell down and shouted. That person as well as Panditji started pressing her neck in order to kill her. Panditji was also trying to tie her neck with a plastic rope since she started raising alarm and as such they fled away. It was alleged that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with the said Panditji and unknown person tried to kill the informant.
6. The police after investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 307, 323, 448 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
7. From the allegation made in the FIR it is clear that the allegation against these two petitioners is of criminal conspiracy, and for hatching criminal conspiracy actual presence of the accused at the place of occurrence is not at all required. The materials, which have been collected during investigation as it appears from the case diary, shows that these two petitioners had conspired for commission of the offence alleged.
8. In exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot appreciate the evidence in the manner the trial Court and the appellate Court are required to do. However, the evidence collected during investigation shows the materials for framing of charge against these two petitioners. It further appears that the trial has already commenced and the witnesses are being examined.
9. In view of the fact and circumstances, discussed above, no case for interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction is made out. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed.