Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1426 (ALL)

SARVESH SINGH v. STATE OF U P

2009-04-16

B.N.SHUKLA

body2009
( 1 ) THIS revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the order dated 4-3-2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Shahjahanpur in S. T. No. 312 of 2006 under section 302 I. P. C. relating to police station Kalan District Shahjahanpur whereby allowing application under section 319 Cr. P. C. summoning the revisionists for trial in the aforesaid case alongwith other co-accused. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri S. R. Verma, learned private counsel appearing from side of opp. party no. 2 and perused the annexures filed in the revision supported by affidavit. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists has submitted that during course of investigation neither informant nor any person has disclosed name of the revisionists and from perusal of evidence tendered on behalf of prosecution, it is prima facie evident that the revisionist has been falsely implicated by means of impugned order. A development of new story during trial against the revisionists does not warrant for summing revisionists under section 319 Cr. P. C. Learned private counsel has submitted that there was ample evidence against the revisionists showing their involvement in the commission of offence and this was the reason that the trial court has allowed application under section 319 Cr. P. C. and summoned revisionists for facing trial alongwith other accused persons. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists has cited rulings given in Bhagat Singh and others vs. State of U. P. and another reported in [2008 (2) L. Cr. R. 183 (HC) wherein it has been held by this Court that merely on the statement of the complainant application under section 319 Cr. P. C. could not be allowed because the complainant herself was not an eye witness. ( 5 ) APPLICATION under section 319 Cr. P. C. was moved from side of respondent no. 2 under section 319 Cr. P. C. for summoning the revisionists to face trial alongwith other co-accused. Before trial court respondent no. 2 was examined as PW-7, Sudhir Singh was examined as PW-8 Ashok Kumar as CW-1 and Gajendra Kumar was examined as CW-2 respectively. case is based on circumstantial evidence. Lal Singh, Ajay Kumar and Ramesh were examined as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. Rati Ram and Brij Kishor were examined as PW-5 and PW-6. Before trial court respondent no. 2 was examined as PW-7, Sudhir Singh was examined as PW-8 Ashok Kumar as CW-1 and Gajendra Kumar was examined as CW-2 respectively. case is based on circumstantial evidence. Lal Singh, Ajay Kumar and Ramesh were examined as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. Rati Ram and Brij Kishor were examined as PW-5 and PW-6. Evidence was given against revisionists showing their prima facie involvement in the present case. Ashok Kumar and Gajendra Singh examined as CW-1 and CW-2 have also given their statements. There was substantive evidence against the revisionists and the trial court was of the view that the revisionists have committed offence in view of evidence adduced for which they could be tried together with the other accused and then passed the impugned order. In this order no illegality is found. Ruling cited from side of the revisionists is not applicable in this case as it is based on different facts. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING factual and legal aspects the revision is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. .