Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 326 (RAJ)

Bhoop Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-02-11

VINEET KOTHARI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 03.07.2009 whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the complainant under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code as the complainant sought to implicate the accused Amit Kumar S/o Sh Dalip Kumar (respondent No. 2 herein) 3. The learned Court below in the impugned order dated 03.07.2009 has clearly stated that in the FIR as well as the statements under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code the specific name of Amit Kumar was not mentioned either by the injured -complainant Bhoop Singh or any other witness, but the only person named was son of Dalip Kumar. The learned trial Court has concluded while rejecting the application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code that said Dalip Kumar has four sons and without specific name, description of son or which son of Dalip Kumar being given, the respondent Amit Kumar could not be added as accused particularly when the trial was at the fag end. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 accused Amit Kumar has stated that in the statement of complainant himself recorded as P.W.5 even in trial Court, said Bhoop Singh has not specifically named the accused respondent No. 2 Amit Kumar to be involved in the incident of beating for which trial is going on for offences under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 307/34 I.P.C. and therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in dismissing the application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code of the complainant. 5. Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial Court on the basis of material available before it, rightly concluded that the respondent No. 2-Amit Kumar could not be added as accused in the said trial on the basis of such evidence in which he was never specifically named except as being son of Dalip Kumar, particularly when said Dalip Kumar had more than one son. 6. Accordingly, there is no force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissedPetition Dismissed. *******