High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:132476 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3362 of 2024 Revisionist :- Amarjeet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Afzal Husain,Irshad Mohamad,Noor Mohammad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
1-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2-The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the revisionist-Amarjeet against the impugned order dated 29.05.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hapur in Sessions Case No. 112, 113 of 2023 (State vs. Gajraj Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 265 of 2022 and 266 of 2022, under Sections 307, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur, whereby, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the injured has been allowed summoning the revisionist to face trial in the above case. 3-The emanation of the facts giving rise to the present criminal revision is that the informant-Pushpendra Maan has lodged a first information report on 21.07.2022 against Gajraj and Amarjeet Singh (revisionist) alleging inter-alia that on 21.07.2022, he along with his father, namely, Harendra Singh was returning to his home from the fields. On his way, accused Gajraj and Amarjeet, with whom they have old enmity, armed with pistol met them and threatened them to 2 eliminate. F.I.R. further alleges that on seeing the situation, they started running but the accused Gajraj caught hold Harendra Singh and exhorted the revisionist to kill him, as such, the revisionist on the exhortation of accused Gajraj fired a gun shot upon informant’s father whereby he has received injury on his neck. On raising alarm, accused threatened the informant to face dire consequences and ran away by brandishing gun. The said incident has been witnessed by Ranvir Singh and Karamvir. 4-Investigating officer, after culmination of investigation, submitted charge-sheet dated 13.09.2022 only against Gajraj, whereas, the revisionist has been exonerated. 5-Before the trial court, statement of the informant and injured has been recorded as PW-1 and PW-2 on 20.02.2024 and 27.02.2024 respectively. The relevant part of the statement of the PW-1 and PW-2 are as follow:- Statement of informant/PW-1 "इन्होंने मेरे पि(cid:11)ताजी को गाली गलौच की, उन्होंने गाली देने से मना पिकया तो गजराज ने मेरे पि(cid:11)ताजी को (cid:11)ीछे (cid:11)कड़ लिलया, और अमरजीत से कहा पिक साले को जान से मार दे। अमरजीत ने अ(cid:11)ने हाथ में लिलये तमन्चे से मेरे पि(cid:11)ताजी को गद#न (cid:11)र गोली मार दी, तो मेरे पि(cid:11)ताजी घायल होकर नीचे पिगर गये। " Statement of injured/PW-2 " रास्तेमेंरणवीरके मकानके सामनेअमरजीतवगजराजपिमलगये। इनसें (cid:11)हले हमारी (cid:11)ुरानी दुश्मनी चल रही। गजराज ने मेरी कोली भरजीतथाअमरजीतकहापिकयहबहुतहमारेलि,लाफ गवाही देतागवाहीदेता है, साले को जान से मार दो। गजराज ने मेरी कोली भर ली और अमरजीत ने मेरी गद#न (cid:11)र गोली मार दी। जो मेरी गद#न की साइड (cid:11)रलगी।मैं घायल होकर वहीं पर गिर गया।घायलहोकरवहीं पर गिर गया।(cid:11)रपिगरगया।" 6-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that though the revisionist is named in the first information report but the country made pistol, which was used in commission of crime, was recovered from the possessions of co-accused Gajraj and from the ballistic report, 3 it has come on record that the said country made pistol was used in the crime. It is next submitted that there was no recovery from the possession of revisionist, therefore, he has been exonerated during investigation. The revisionist has been implicated in this case only on account of previous enmity. Learned counsel for the revisionist placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shankar vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 730 submitted that impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7-Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the said submissions of counsel for the revisionist by contending that the revisionist and co-accused Gajraj were equally involved in the said crime. The learned trial court, after considering the evidence on record, has rightly allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of injured Harendra Singh and summoned the revisionist to face trial, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 8-Having examined the matter in its entirety, in the light of submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I find that in the first information report as well as in the statement of complainant and injured, recorded as PW-1 and PW-2 before the trial court, it is their specific case that co- accused Gajraj had caught hold Harendra Singh/injured from behind and the revisionist-Amarjeet has fired at him on the exhortation of co-accused Gajraj, which hit him on his neck. The said statement of injured witness is also corroborated from the medical evidence, therefore, under the facts of the case and material on record, said statement is more than prima-facie to frame charge against the revisionist. 9-Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 is the celebrated judgement on the point, 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 Court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. It has 4 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. 10-So far as the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the revisionist in the case of Shankar (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the revisionist is not helpful to him as the same is distinguishable on the facts and evidence of this case. In that case victim in her examination-in-chief had deposed inter-alia that she had old enmity with accused person and in cross-examination deposed inter-alia that name of accused persons were mentioned in the F.I.R. on the basis of suspicion, whereas no such facts exists in the present 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-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find the statement of the informant and injured recorded before the trial Court is more than prima facie case and is sufficient to frame charge. If the evidence of informant-PW-1 and injured- PW-2 goes unrebutted, there is strong possibility of conviction of the accused persons. Hence I do not find any 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.
Decision
12-In view of the above, this criminal revision lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed. 13-Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information within a week. Order Date :- 14.8.2024 Saurabh