State of U.P v. Yogesh and others), under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:153286 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2477 of 2024 Revisionist :- Vijendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
Per contra, learned Additional Government also submits that the evidence which has come on record during trial is more than prima facie, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. 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 the F.I.R. has been lodged against ten accused persons, wherein opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 have assigned the role of assaulting the injured by sticks. PW-1 who is informant and lodged F.I.R., in his examination-in- chief supported the F.I.R. version and assigned role of causing injury to Yogesh, Rohit and Umesh but he in cross-examination has clearly stated that he had not seen the incident. PW-2 in his examination-in-chief stated inter-alia that Yogesh with the intention of killing, hit his head with an axe from the reverse side and other person assaulted him with kicks and fists but there is no injury of kicks and fists on his body. Similarly PW-3 in his examination-in-chief has stated inter-alia that Umesh hit on his head with reverse side of shovel. I also find that the nature and number of injuries found on the body of injured persons do not corroborate with the attribution of general role of assault by opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 with sticks. 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. In the light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra), I find that allegations levelled by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 during trial if go unrebutted, there is bleak possibility of conviction of the accused. The evidence which has been brought on record does not come 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. The Criminal Revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below within a week. Order Date :- 20.9.2024 Kashifa
Arguments
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. The instant Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the revisionist, namely, Vijendra Singh against the impugned order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 9, Firozabad in Session Trial No. 1415 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Yogesh and others), under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of 2020, police station Narkhi, district Firozabad, whereby the trial court has rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist and refused to summon opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 to face trial in the above case. The emanation of facts giving rise to the present Criminal Revision are that the first informant (revisionist) got a First Information Report lodged on 16.03.2020 with regard to an incident which took place on 15.03.2020 against ten accused persons, namely, Yogesh, Rohit, Birbal, Vijendra, Khacherpal, Kallu, Manohar, Raju, Sonu and Umesh for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 452, 307, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. with the allegations inter alia that on 12.03.2020 in the marriage of his daughter, the aforesaid accused persons were trying to misbehave with his relatives who came to attend the marriage, as a result thereof, some altercation took place between his sons and the accused persons. On account of that, on 15.03.2020 at about 04:30 pm, Yogesh armed with axe, Rohit armed with iron rod, in collusion with other accused persons, barged into his house and started beating his family members. Yogesh with an intention of killing, hit Sanju's head with an axe from the reverse side, due to which a 4 inch long and deep fracture was caused on his head. Rohit hit Rajanshree's left leg with an iron rod, due to which his left leg was broken. Umesh hit Brijesh on the head with shovel, due to which a lot of blood oozed out. Remaining persons abused and assaulted with kicks and fists. The investigating officer, after investigation submitted the charge sheet only against five accused persons namely Rohit, Umesh, Raju, Sonu and Yogesh. No charge sheet was submitted against opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 and they were exonerated during investigation, because in the opinion of the investigating officer, their complicity in the alleged crime was found false. During trial, statements of the informant (revisionist) and two injured namely, Sanju and Brajesh have been recorded before the trial court and they have made allegations against opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 also. Thereafter, revisionist who is complainant in this case / prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 as additional accused, which has been rejected vide impugned order. The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the F.I.R. was lodged against ten accused persons, namely, Yogesh, Rohit, Birbal, Vijendra, Khacherpal, Kallu, Manohar, Raju, Sonu and Umesh and general role of beating by sticks (lathi- danda) has been assigned to opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 and injured have received injuries also. The investigating officer did not conduct fair investigation with regard to opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 and they have wrongly been exonerated in this case and no charge sheet was submitted against them, therefore, on the basis of statement of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 are liable to be summoned to face trial, but the learned trial court illegally rejected the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist.