N.G. Nandi, J. - (1.)The charge framed under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") is sought to be revised/set aside in this criminal revision petition under Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code under Sections 364, 387, 302, 201 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 32/92, Police Station Narela, Delhi by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(2.)Four persons including the present petitioner have been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences on the allegation that on 23.1.1992, Ch. Inder Singh had come to Delhi in his Maruti Car No. DAJ-4331 for some personal work but did not return till night. Search was of no consequence; that on 28.1.1992 the complainant was given telephone call by his servant from his residence at Majlis Park, Azad Pur, Delhi and asked the complainant to take his letter which was left by someone whereupon the complainant went to his Majlis Park house on 29.1.1992 and there his servant gave him four envelopes which had no address written on them; that the servant told the complainant that on 28.1.1992 some unknown person had delivered the letters; that the reading of the letters revealed that Ch. Inder Singh had been abducted for money sake and the demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs to 10.00 lakhs had been raised with a threat in the letters that in case the money was not so delivered. his entire family will be killed. On this basis, the FIR came to be lodged.
(3.)The Additional Sessions Judge, afterhearing the Counsel for the accused and the prosecutor framed the charge for the aforesaid offence. Assailing the order framing charge against the accused Bhan Prakash Singh as the alleged co-conspirator, it is submitted by Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that before Section 10 of the Evidence Act could be relied the requirements contemplated, which are in two parts, must be satisfied and that in the instant case the first part of Section 10 of the Evidence Act is not complied with and so long as the requirement contemplated in the first part of Section 10 of the Evidence Act is not complied with, the second part of Sec.l0 does not come into play; that except statement of the coaccused, there is no evidence to connect this accused with the incident and that the statement of the co-accused is not a legal evidence on the basis of which charge could be framed; that u/Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act, the statement of accused can only be used for limited purpose of recovery and for no other purpose. As against this, it is submitted by Mr. Behl, learned APP that the charge sheet alleges the conspiracy by two or more persons; that the statements of other witnesses Hem Chander and Ranvir suggest the involvement of other persons in the incident; that the statement of the witnesses do not suggest the name of this accused person and that the requirement contemplated in the first part of Section 10 of the Evidence Act is satisfied as there is reason to believe on the basis of the statement of the witnesses that two or more than two persons have conspired in the commission of alleged offence.