Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 443 (UTT)

Mohd. Arshad v. State of Uttaranchal

2005-10-07

B.C.KANDPAL

body2005
JUDGMENT B. C. Kandpal, J. This Criminal Revision is arising out of the order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar on 16.7.2005 in Session Trial No. 382 of 2004 case crime No. 44 of 2004 State versus Azad under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a case under Section 302 IPC was registered against the accused Azad and charge sheet was submitted and thereafter trial started. 3. The prosecution examined the witness Ansar Ali, P.W. 1 who in his deposition before the court below has stated that the revisionist Mohd. Arshad arid Farman along with co-accused Azad committed murder of Ishrar. 4. On the basis of aforesaid statements an application was filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the revisionists to face trial. 5. The learned trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the evidence was pleased to allow the application of summoning the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 16.7.2005. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order the revisionists have preferred this revision before this court. 7. Heard Sh. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists learned AGA and Sh. K. S. Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 8. The order passed by the revisional court shows that PW1 Ansar .Ali categorically has deposed before the court below that at the time of incident he identified two assailants who were in the company of co-accused Azad who committed murder of Ishrar but he did not know their names and subsequently he came to know the names of two persons and he informed the police accordingly. 19. I have perused the statement of P/W 1 Ansar Ali which has been filed by the revisionists along with the revision. The statement shows that Ansar Ali PW 1 bad informed the SSP on 24.3.2004 vide paper No. 10/8 and 10/9 and he has also informed the SSP by way of af9resaid documents that his brother Ishrar was caught hold by Arshad and Farman and the co-accused Azad fired at Jshrar. 10. The perusal of the documents available on record shows that the complainant has clearly assigned the role to three persons in the First Information Report and had also disclosed the name of revisionists subsequently to the SSP. 11. 10. The perusal of the documents available on record shows that the complainant has clearly assigned the role to three persons in the First Information Report and had also disclosed the name of revisionists subsequently to the SSP. 11. I am of the view that there was sufficient material available with the trial court to summon the revisionists on the basis of deposition of PW 1 Ansar Ali who is the complainant of the case. 12. I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge Haridwar. To my mind the order summoning the revisionist to face the trial is just and proper and needs no interference. 13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly the revision is dismissed. 15. The interim order passed by this court on 26.7.2005 stands vacated.