Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3425 (ALL)

Kadir v. State of U. P.

2016-10-06

VINOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-III

body2016
JUDGMENT Vinod Kumar Srivastava-III,J. This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.9.2016 passed by Session Judge, Bijnor in Session Trial No. 189 of 2016 (State vs. Kadir and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 443 of 2015, under Section 302 /34 IPC, police station Kiratpur, district Bijnor, whereby the revisionists have been summoned to face the trial under Section 302 /34 IPC on the basis of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the revisionists were named in the FIR, but during the investigation, investigating officer has exonerated them and did not file the charge sheet against the revisionists. Thereafter, during the course of trial on the basis of statement of PW-1, the complainant, Laeek Ahmad, trial court has summoned the accused-revisionists to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. while there is no prima facie evidence against them. Learned AGA opposed the aforesaid prayer for quashing the order and submitted that the order has been passed after considering the evidence of PW.1, the complainant, Laeek Ahmad, which discloses the involvement of the revisionists in committing the murder of the deceased along with other co-accused and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error requiring any interference by this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others; 2014 Law Suit (SC) 22 has laid down the guidelines in Para 99, which reads as under: - "Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if 'it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence' is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are not 'for which such person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused." In the light of the aforesaid guidelines, perusal of the impugned order reveals that the revisionists were initially named in the first information report. The statement of complainant PW-1, Laeek Ahmad shows that there is credible evidence against the revisionists as complainant deposed in his statement regarding the involvement of the revisionist along with other co-accused in committing the offence. The learned trial court has considered all aspects and materials on record and has found prima facie sufficient evidence against the revisionists, which shows the complicity of the revisionists in committing the offence. I have gone through the memo of revision and the affidavit filed in this revision as well as impugned order, I do not find that the impugned order suffers from illegality or infirmity requiring any interference by this Court. The learned trial court after noticing that there was prima facie more than sufficient admissible evidence on record indicating the complicity of the revisionists in commission of the offence, summoned the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial for the aforesaid offence. The revision is devoid of merit. The prayer for quashing of the summoning order is refused. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.