Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 167 (ALL)

STATE OF U. P. v. S. K. S. RANA

2017-01-12

PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2017
JUDGMENT : This revision has been preferred on behalf of the State against order dated 6.5.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Court No. 18,Bulandshar, by which accused of Sessions Trial No. 519 of 2008 (State Vs. S.K.S. Rana) was discharged. Heard learned AGA on behalf of the revisionist, Sri Mukhtar Alam, Advocate for opposite party no. 2 and perused the records. On the basis of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C moved by Sadhu Singh, case crime no. 161 of 192 was registered, in which after investigation, two chargesheets were filed. First chargesheet was filed for offence under Section 364, 302, 149, 201, 119, 218, 221, 297/34, 120B IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act against Anil Kumar and three other persons. On the basis of said chargesheet, sessions trial no. 1059 of 2006 was carried out, in which prosecution side had adduced six witnesses of fact. All the witnesses in said sessions trial had either turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, sessions trial is resulted in acquittal by judgment dated 4.6.2007 of concerned sessions court. Thereafter, for the same case crime no. 161 of 1992 another chargesheet was filed against co-accused of said case SKS Rana, on the basis of which sessions trial no. 519 of 2008 (State of SKS Rana) was registered for the same offences, regarding which earlier chargesheet against co-accused persons were filed and ST No. 1059 of 2006 was decided. In sessions trial no. 519 of 2008, trial court had heard the prosecution and defence side on the point of framing of charge, considered the evidences adduced in earlier concluded sessions trial no. 1059 of 2006 and after considering the testimonies of witnesses of fact mentioned in chargesheet, who had also been examined in ST No. 1059 of 2006 , it had found that from those evidences no offence appears to have been committed and no case is made out for framing of charge against accused SKS Rana. On the basis of this finding, trial court had discharged the accused SKS Rana. Against this order of discharge, present revision has been preferred. Admittedly, in the sessions trial no. 1059 of 2006 decided on 4.6.2007 and in the sessions trial no. 519 of 2008 relating to same case crime no. 161 of 1992 and all accused persons were chargesheeted for commission of same identical offences. Against this order of discharge, present revision has been preferred. Admittedly, in the sessions trial no. 1059 of 2006 decided on 4.6.2007 and in the sessions trial no. 519 of 2008 relating to same case crime no. 161 of 1992 and all accused persons were chargesheeted for commission of same identical offences. All the witnesses of facts mentioned in chargesheet of ST No. 519 of 2008 were same, which were witnesses of ST No. 1059 of 2006 and had been examined, but had not supported the prosecution case. The trial court in ST No. 519 of 2008 had rightly considered those statements of witnesses of fact of chargesheet who had earlier been examined in ST No. 1059 of 2006 and gave finding accordingly. Since earlier statement of witnesses of fact was admissible evidences and was available before the trial court in ST No. 519 of 2001 (in which they had specifically denied or supported the prosecution case) then finding of no case being made out for framing the charge, as given by trial court is found not erroneous. There was no propriety for carrying out full-fledged trial again examining the same witnesses of fact and giving finding that their earlier statement is also admissible and then order of acquittal of the accused be passed. This Court finds no legal or procedural irregularity in passing of the impugned order of discharge passed by trial court in this matter. Therefore, this revision is dismissed.