State v. Rinku), under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:138715 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2460 of 2024 Revisionist :- Karmveer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Adarsh Bhushan,Ishwar Chandra Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Tiwari Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Rajmani Yadav, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. the Rajiv Tiwari, complainant/opposite party No. 2. learned counsel for 2. The instant Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the revisionist, namely, Karmveer Singh, against the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge-IXth, Aligarh in Session Trial No. 922 of 2018 (State Vs. Rinku), under Sections 302, 120B I.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No. 585 of 2018, police station Tappal, district Aligarh, whereby the trial court in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has summoned the revisionist as an additional accused to face trial in the above case. 3. Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that complainant-Shyam Sundar Sharma who is son of deceased lodged F.I.R. on 14.08.2018 under Section 302 I.P.C. against the present revisionist-Karmveer Singh and one unknown person alleging inter alia that on 27.07.2018 at about 3:00 O'clock his father Hariom Sharma requested the revisionist-Karmveer Singh who is Pradhan of the village, for getting the road in front of his house repaired, on which he started abusing and threatening him. On 29.07.2018 at about 6:05 pm, the revisionist made telephonic call at his mobile to ascertain about his (complainant's) presence at the house and thereafter, the revisionist along with his associates Omprakash @ Chhote, Pawan and 2-3 unknown persons came to his house in a Bolero Vehicle No. 85 Y 2020 and started abusing and beating his father with kicks, fists and sticks. When his mother Urmila Devi and sister Suman came to intervene, they were also beaten and manhandled by them, due to which their clothes got torn. On that day, the revisionist had threatened to kill his father by pointing pistol at him. On 14.08.2018 he had gone to Jattari police chauki along with his father, but due to some reasons, he could not go there and while he along with his father was coming back to his village, at about 1:00 pm when they reached near Brij Mohan Sharma Inter College, two persons came from behind on a motorcycle, Karmveer Singh who was sitting at the back of motorcycle fired a shot by firearm at his father, which hit near his right ear, due to which, he fell down and died on the spot. After the incident, they ran away towards Shah Nagar Saurola. Other persons of the village also saw them running away after the incident. Information about said incident, was given to police at 100. 4. The Investigating Officer, after investigation submitted the charge sheet only against six co- accused persons, namely, Rinku Singh, Vijendra, Braham Prakash, Yashpal, Subhash and Satte Singh. No charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist and he was exonerated during investigation. 5. During trial, statement of the informant / complainant was recorded as PW-1 on 19.01.2023, in which he has assigned specific allegations of shooting his father (Hariom Sharma) to the revisionist-Karamveer. Relevant part of the statement of PW-1 recorded before the trial court is as follows: "ममेरमे पपितताजजी नमे पदिनतानांक 27.07.2018 शताम तजीन बजमे तत्कतालजीन प्रधतान कमरवजीर समे खरन्जता सहजी करतानमे कको कहता थता तको उसनमे ममेरमे पपितताजजी कको मतामाँ बहन ककी गन्दिजी गन्दिजी गताललयतामाँ दिजी थजी और जतान समे मतारनमे ककी धमककी दिजी थजी इसजी बतात कको लमेकर पदिनतानांक 29.07.2018 कको शताम छछः बजमे कमरवजीर नमे ममेरमे फकोन सनांख्यता 9758371318 पिर मकोबताइल सनांख्यता 9761086581 समे पपितताजजी कमे बतारमे मम पिपूछता और ककछ समय बतादि अपिनमे सताथजी ओम प्रकताश उफर छकोटमे व पिवन व करुआ और दिको तजीन आदिमजी कको बकललैरको गताडजी यपू पिजी 85 वताई 2020 समे घर पिर आकर ममेरमे पपितता कमे सताथ गन्दिजी गन्दिजी गताललयतामाँ दिजी और उनकमे पवरकोध करनमे पिर उनकमे सताथ मतारपिजीट ककी। बजीच पवचताव मम आयजी ममेरजी मतामाँ उपमरलता व ममेरजी बहन सकपमतता दिमेवजी कमे सताथ भजी मतारपिजीट ककी और ममेरमे कपिडमेडे़ फताड पदियमे। तभजी प्रताधतान कमरवजीर नमे तमन्चता ततानकर ममेरमे पपितता कको जतान समे मतारनमे ककी धमककी दिजी थजी इसककी पशकतायत थतानता पिर ककी थजी लमेपकन लजी नहहीं थजी इसकमे बतादि पशकतायत एस० एस० पिजी० अलजीगढ़ कको लललखत मम ककी थजी लजसककी जतामाँच हमेतक पदिनतानांक 14.08.2018 कको चचौककी जटटतारजी पिर दिरकोगताजजी नमे बकलतायता तको मम घर समे मकोटर सताईपकल समे अपिनमे पपितता कको बलैठता कर जटटतारजी आवश्यक कतायर कमे कतारण घर वतापिस आनता पिडता और चचौककी नहहीं गयमे। रतास्तमे मम शताहनगर शकोरकोलता ब्रजमकोहन इण्टर कतालमेज पिहहमाँचमे तभजी पिजीछमे समे समय करजीब एक बजमे पदिन एक मकोटर सताईपकल पिर दिको व्यपक्ति आयमे मकोटर सताईपकल पिर पिजीछमे कमरवजीर बलैठता थता और आगमे ककोई अजतात व्यपक्ति मकोटरसताईपकल चलता रहता थता और बरताबर आकर कमरवजीर नमे तमन्चता पनकताल कर सजीधमे कतान पिर गकोलजी मतार दिजी लजससमे हम लकोग पगर गयमे और ममेरमे पपितता ककी मचौकमे पिर ममृत्यक हको गयजी । और गकोलजी मतारकर कमरवतार अपिनमे सताथजी कमे सताथ भताग गयता। मलैनमे सचौ नम्बर पिर फकोन पकयता ककछ समय बतादि पिकललस आ गयजी थजी और ममेरमे घर वतालमे व मकोहलमे कमे लकोग आ गयमे थमे।" 6. Thereafter, on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the informant, the revisionist has been summoned vide impugned order dated 09.02.2024. 7. It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that since in this case complicity of the revisionist was found false during investigation and no charge- sheet was submitted against him, therefore, the revisionist cannot be summoned merely on the basis of evidence of the PW-1 recorded before the trial court. It is next submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in this case. At the time of incident, he was not present at the spot. At the time of the incident, the revisionist was in a meeting of Tree Plantation Programme along with Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is also submitted that no objection was made by the complainant just after submission of the charge-sheet. The statement of PW-1 has been recorded after much delay, in which he has narrated the same story as mentioned in the F.I.R., therefore, the revisionist is not liable to be summoned as an additional accused. Learned counsel for the revisionist relying upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shishupal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2019 (8) SCC 682 submits that the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 is liable to be set-aside. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 vehemently opposed the said submission by contending that the evidence which has come on record during trial is more than prima facie, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. They further submit that the incident took place on 14.08.2018 at about 1:00 pm (13:00 O'clock) whereas Sub Divisional Magistrate in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has stated that meeting related to Tree Plantation Programme was concluded at 12:00 pm and the revisionist was with him on 14.08.2018 up to 12:30 pm only. They also pointed out that the Investigating Officer exonerated the revisionist on the basis of the CCTV footage dated 14.08.2018 between 01:26:50 pm to 01:32:20 pm of State Bank of India, whereas there is no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, no reliance can be placed upon the said CCTV footage. Referring the statement of Ravi Shankar Yadav, Lekhpal recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., they also submit that the meeting of the Village Pradhans with Sub Divisional Magistrate was very short. Lastly it is submitted that specific role of shooting the deceased has been assigned to the present revisionist, which is more than prima-facie to frame charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the revisionist and evidence of PW-1 is of the level which can render the revisionist into his conviction. 9. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that there is no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in order to place reliance upon the alleged electronic evidence. It is the specific case of the complainant since beginning that Karmveer was sitting at the back of motorcycle, who fired a shot by his firearm at his father, which hit near his right ear, due to which he fell down and died on the spot. The complainant/PW-1 is son of the deceased and ocular witness of the incident. The plea of alibi of the revisionist is a matter of evidence before the trial Court. 10. So far as the judgment in the case of Shishupal Singh (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist is concerned, there is no dispute about proposition of law laid down in the said judgement but the same is not helpful to him as the same is distinguishable on the facts and evidence of this case. It is well settled that every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusion in two cases, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. 11. The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 is the celebrated judgment on the issue involved in this case, which laid down the criteria for summoning a person as an additional accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. holding that where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the trial Court, then such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. It has also been held that 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 said view has further been followed in catena of judgments by the Apex Court. 12. In the light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra), I find that if allegations levelled by PW-1 during trial if go unrebutted, there is possibility of conviction of the accused. The evidence which has been brought on record comes under the purview of more than prima facie. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The presumption, observations and findings recorded by the trial court are not liable to be interfered with. 13. The Criminal Revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below within a week. Order Date :- 29.8.2024 Kashifa