JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Dileep Kuinar Advocate assisted by Sri Rajiv Gupta Advocate, learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 244 of 1995, State v. Darshan Singh and Anr., pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1), Etawah, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 120B I.P.C. arising out of case crime No. 32 of 1985, Police Station Basrehar, District Etawah.
3. An incident took place on 23.2.1985 at 6.00 P.M. and first information report was lodged on 24.2.2005 at 8.45 A.M. Four persons Darshan Singh, Har Gobind Singh (applicants), Sri Chand and Jagat Singh were named along with four unknown assailants. The allegation in the first information report was that conspiracy was hatched by the applicants with the accused and Kulf Singh was done to death. Two weapons Barka and Kulhari were alleged to have been used in the said occurrence. The role of assault was given to accused Shri Chand and Jagat Singh. The prosecution witnesses, who were said to have witnessed the occurrence, are Janardan Singh, Shiv Devi, Baburam, Chhotey Singh and Jasvir Singh. The witnesses Jag Mohan Singh and Dau Dayal are those witnesses, who claimed to have witnessed the factum of conspiracy by the applicants. A copy of the first information report is annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit. A charge sheet was submitted against the accused Shree Chand and subsequently the investigation continued by C.B.C.I.D. A supplementary charge sheet was submitted on 31.8.1990. On the basis of first charge sheet, the Session Trial No. 154 of 1987-State v. Shree Chand proceeded. The prosecution witnesses, who were examined, were Peru Smgh PW-1, C.P. Brijraj PW-2, Ram Singh PW-3, Shiv Pal Smgh PW-4, Dr. K.C. Jain PW-5, Dau Dayal PW-6, Chhotey Singh PW-7, Hakim Rai PW-8, Het Singh PW-9, Sipahi Lal PW-10 and Maya Devi PW-11. The Vlth Additional Session Judge, Etawah acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 24.3.1995. A copy of the judgment is annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit.
4. I have perused the judgment. PW-6 Dau Dayal, who is a witness of conspiracy in respect of the present applicants, was disbelieved. The factum of conspiracy was scrutinized by the learned Sessions Judge and since the witnesses were unbelievable, the Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove that the conspiracy was hatched on 23.2.1985 at 9.00 A.M. between the accused Shree Chand, Darshan Singh, Har Govind Singh and Jagat Singh and as a consequence of the said conspiracy, Kulf Singh was murdered. In view of the fact that the main assailant, who had committed the assault, was honourably acquitted, this application has been filed for quashing the proceedings in session trial of those two accused who are only made an accused by the aid of Section 120B I.P.C. Counsel for the applicants has emphatically stressed that the charge sheet has been filed against the present applicants in the year 1995 and they are subjected to undue harassment if they are made to face the trial. On perusal of the judgment dated 24.3.1995 passed in Session Trial No. 154 of 1987-State v. Shree Chand, it is amply clear that the witnesses did not come forward to support the prosecution case as such the present proceeding, which is uselessly dragged in the Court, is nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court. It has been emphasized that to the facts and circumstances of the present case the 'principle of stare' decisive is squarely applicable and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed on a number of decisions, Wazeer Yadav v. State of U.P. Criminal Misc. Application No. 378 of 2004 where it has been held that in the event, circumstances of the case are such that no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings against the accused and result of the proceeding is very obvious and it can be safely concluded that even if the trial is allowed to continue, it will only end in an order of acquittal, the ultimate result is a foregone conclusion, thus no fruitful purpose will be gained in the event, the proceedings are allowed to continue in respect of other accused specially when the main accused has already been acquitted. In another decision Manoj v. State of U.P. 2004 (49) ACC, 302, this Court has ruled that since two accused were acquitted and the same evidence is to be adjudicated for the second time, it will only amount to wastage of time. Admittedly, no conviction can be procured and there is no prospect of the case ending in a conviction against the present applicants, it will only be a hollow formality of completing the procedure of the trial. It is almost certain that the trial will meet the same fate and, therefore, entire exercise of going through the rigmarole of trial will be rendered futile, in such a case proceedings can be quashed. In another case Sanju @. Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P. 2005(53) ACC, 429, this Court had followed the principle in the judgment of Pradeep @ Bhondu @ Bantoo v. State of U.P. 2005(51) ACC, 955 and Diwan Singh v. State of U.P. 1965 (2) ACC, 118 and also in Virendra Pawar v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2003 (47) ACC, 1034. It has repeatedly been held that where two persons are prosecuted though separately, for the same charge and offences in the same transaction and on the basis of same evidence, if one of them is acquitted for whatever reason then it will create an anomalous position in law if the other person is convicted and this will surely shake the confidence of the people in the administration of justice.
5. In the facts and circumstances, it is amply clear that the main accused has been acquitted and evidence of Dau Dayal was disbelieved and finding has been recorded that there was no such conspiracy, the principle of stare decisive is squarely applicable in the present case, there as in the case of Manoj v. State the proceedings were quashed applying the principle of stare decisive, the present applicants are also entitled to the same relief and charge sheet should be quashed.
6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the judgment-dated 24.3.1995 in Session Trial No. 154 of 1987, I am convinced that the proceedings on the basis of the impugned charge sheet should be quashed applying the principle of 'stare decisive".
7. For the reasons discussed above, this application is allowed and the charge sheets dated 7.6.1985 and 31.8.1990 submitted in Session Trial No. 244 of 1995, State v. Darslian Singh and Anr., arising out of case crime No. 32 of 1985, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302. 201, 120B I.P.C. Police Station Basrehar, District Etawah, pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1).