High Court

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Visheshwar Mani Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Akhilesh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 4.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- Ist, Sant Kabir Nagar in S.T. No. 82 of 2018 ( State Vs. Sanjai Rai and others) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionists have been summoned to face the trial under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 325/149, 308/149, 504 and 506 I.P.C.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionists that they were named in the First Information Report lodged in respect of the crime in question and the police investigated the matter but since in the investigation, it revealed that the revisionists were not present on the place of occurrence, their names were expunged while filing Charge Sheet in the matter.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has argued that the law in respect of summoning of the additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C. is well settled and the trial court is under obligation to record its satisfaction on the basis of the evidence available on record that if the the said evidence is unrebutted that would lead to conviction of the additional accused and only then the additional accused can be summoned to face the trial. It has further been argued that in the present case, sufficient evidence against the revisionists is not available before the trial court therefore, the trial court while summoning the revisionists to face the trial, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., had committed a manifest error of law and fact both.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and Sri Sri Visheshwar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel, appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 have submitted that the revisionists were named in the First Information Report and they have also been named in the statements of the injured witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that the injured witnesses including the eye witnesses, while deposing before the trial court, have categorically stated that the revisionists were involved in the crime in question.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, in respect of the investigation conducted in the matter that the revisionists were not present on the place of occurrence at the time of incident, have argued that the claim of revisionists that they were not present on the place of occurrence is their defence and that can only be scrutinized in the trial where each and every evidence produced by the prosecution would be considered by the trial court. It has also been argued that before the trial court testimony of the injured witnesses and the eye witnesses are available, wherein all the witnesses have categorically demonstrated the role of the revisionists in the crime in question therefore, there is sufficient evidence for summoning of the revisionists in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as it is manifest that if the evidence available before the trial court is not rebutted that would lead to the conviction of the revisionists.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the revisionists are named in the First Information Report and have been assigned categorical role in the crime in question. The injured witnesses as well as the other eye witnesses of the incident, in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., have categorically deposed that the revisionists were involved in the crime in question.

8. This Court further finds that the injured witnesses and other eye witnesses while deposing before the trial court have also demonstrated the role of the revisionists in the crime in question. The trial court while passing the impugned order dated 4.11.2024 had considered the entire evidence available on record and thereafter had recorded finding that there is sufficient evidence available against the revisionists for summoning them to face the trial, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. For ready reference the finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned order dated 4.11.2024 is extracted as under; " यह सससथथपपत पवधध हह पक धथरथ- 319 दद० प० सद० कथ पथथरनथ पत पसतसत करनन हनतस कन वल वथदद मसकदमथ कक मसखय परदकथ आवशयक हह और उसकक धजरह हहनथ आवशयक नहह हह। पतथवलद कथ अवलहकन पकयथ। पतथवलद कन अवलहकन सन सपष हहतथ हह पक एफ० आई० आर० कन अनससथर पदनथदक 06.03.2018 कह समय दहपहर बजन वथदद अपनन मकथन पर फह लन हहए ईदट इकटथ कर रहथ थथ, तभद 12.00 सदजय, धनजय, बबलल, आलहक व अषभसजथ तथथ अजय लथठद डदडथ तलवथर व कटथ लनकर उसन पदटनन लगन और दथपहनथ हथथ टल ट गयथ। सलचनथ पथकर वथदद कन दहनन लडकन आयन तह उनहह भद लथठद तलवथर सन हमलथ कर पदयथ धजससन रपव धसर मह तलवथर कक चहट आयद। ममकन शदकर दथपहनथ हथथ टल ट गयथ व पवकथस कन पर उपससथत लहगन नन बदच बचथव पकयथ जथतन हहए अपभयसकगण नन जथन सन मथरनन कक धमकक दद। उक तहरदर कन आधथर पर सभद छछ अपभयसकगण कन पवरद एफ० आई० आर० पदजदकक त हहआ। पववनचनथ कन दमरथन अपभयसकगण कह अनयत उपससथपत कन आधथर पर सदधलप नहह पथयथ गयथ। अनयत उपससथपत कथ सथकय बचथव सथकय कथ पवषय हह और उसकन सदबदध मह बचथव सथकय कथ अवसर आनन पर उसन अपभयसकगण कह पसतसत करनन कथ अवसर पथप हहगथ। बचथव पक नन जह यह तकर पदयथ हह पक कन वल पररवथर कन लहगन कह परदपकत करथयथ गयथ वह गथह नहह हह कयनपक धथरथ- 319 दद० प० स० मह तलब करनन हनतस वथदद मसकदमथ कथ मसखय परदकथ हद आवशयक हह उसकक धजरह हहनथ भद आवशयक नहह हह। वतरमथन वथद मह तदन सथकद परदपकत हहए हह और तदनन हद सथकद चहटपहल सथकद हह। अतछ घटनथ पर इनकक उपससथपत सन पकसद भद पकथर सन इदकथर नहह पकयथ जथ सकतथ और तदनन सथपकयन नन हद पवचथरण कन दमरथन पकयन गयन कथनन मह उपरहक सभद नथपमत अपभयसकगण धजनमह पसतथपवत अपभयसक भद हह कह घटनथ मह सदधलप हहनथ बतथयथ हह। पतथवलद पर उपलबध सथमगद सन पसतथपवत अपभयसकगण बबलल, अषभसजथ व आलहक कह अदतगरत धथरथ- 147, 148, 323/149, 325/149, 308/149, 504, 506 भथ० द० पव० मह पवचथरण पकयन जथनन कथ पयथरप सथकय उपलबध हह। उपरहक पररससथपतयन मह पसतथपवत अपभयसकगण बबलल रथय, अषभसजथ रथय व आलहक रथय उपरहक धथरथओद मह तलब हहनन यहगय हह। पथथरनथ पत 27 ख सवदकथर हहनन यहगय हह।"

9. I have gone through the aforesaid finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned order dated 4.11.2024 and I find that the injured witnesses and other eye witnesses of the incident, all along in their statements have taken names of the revisionists and they have also disclosed their role in the crime in question. Once the injured witnesses and other eye witnesses have categorically demonstrated the role of the revisionists in the crime in question, their defence that on the date of occurrence they were not present at the place of occurrence is a matter which can be demonstrated before the trial court while giving evidence in their defence but that cannot be considered to be gospel truth by the trial court at the stage of exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 4.11.2024.

10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Gss

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Visheshwar Mani Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Akhilesh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 4.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- Ist, Sant Kabir Nagar in S.T. No. 82 of 2018 ( State Vs. Sanjai Rai and others) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionists have been summoned to face the trial under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 325/149, 308/149, 504 and 506 I.P.C.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionists that they were named in the First Information Report lodged in respect of the crime in question and the police investigated the matter but since in the investigation, it revealed that the revisionists were not present on the place of occurrence, their names were expunged while filing Charge Sheet in the matter.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has argued that the law in respect of summoning of the additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C. is well settled and the trial court is under obligation to record its satisfaction on the basis of the evidence available on record that if the the said evidence is unrebutted that would lead to conviction of the additional accused and only then the additional accused can be summoned to face the trial. It has further been argued that in the present case, sufficient evidence against the revisionists is not available before the trial court therefore, the trial court while summoning the revisionists to face the trial, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., had committed a manifest error of law and fact both.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and Sri Sri Visheshwar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel, appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 have submitted that the revisionists were named in the First Information Report and they have also been named in the statements of the injured witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that the injured witnesses including the eye witnesses, while deposing before the trial court, have categorically stated that the revisionists were involved in the crime in question.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, in respect of the investigation conducted in the matter that the revisionists were not present on the place of occurrence at the time of incident, have argued that the claim of revisionists that they were not present on the place of occurrence is their defence and that can only be scrutinized in the trial where each and every evidence produced by the prosecution would be considered by the trial court. It has also been argued that before the trial court testimony of the injured witnesses and the eye witnesses are available, wherein all the witnesses have categorically demonstrated the role of the revisionists in the crime in question therefore, there is sufficient evidence for summoning of the revisionists in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as it is manifest that if the evidence available before the trial court is not rebutted that would lead to the conviction of the revisionists.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the revisionists are named in the First Information Report and have been assigned categorical role in the crime in question. The injured witnesses as well as the other eye witnesses of the incident, in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., have categorically deposed that the revisionists were involved in the crime in question.

8. This Court further finds that the injured witnesses and other eye witnesses while deposing before the trial court have also demonstrated the role of the revisionists in the crime in question. The trial court while passing the impugned order dated 4.11.2024 had considered the entire evidence available on record and thereafter had recorded finding that there is sufficient evidence available against the revisionists for summoning them to face the trial, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. For ready reference the finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned order dated 4.11.2024 is extracted as under; " यह सससथथपपत पवधध हह पक धथरथ- 319 दद० प० सद० कथ पथथरनथ पत पसतसत करनन हनतस कन वल वथदद मसकदमथ कक मसखय परदकथ आवशयक हह और उसकक धजरह हहनथ आवशयक नहह हह। पतथवलद कथ अवलहकन पकयथ। पतथवलद कन अवलहकन सन सपष हहतथ हह पक एफ० आई० आर० कन अनससथर पदनथदक 06.03.2018 कह समय दहपहर बजन वथदद अपनन मकथन पर फह लन हहए ईदट इकटथ कर रहथ थथ, तभद 12.00 सदजय, धनजय, बबलल, आलहक व अषभसजथ तथथ अजय लथठद डदडथ तलवथर व कटथ लनकर उसन पदटनन लगन और दथपहनथ हथथ टल ट गयथ। सलचनथ पथकर वथदद कन दहनन लडकन आयन तह उनहह भद लथठद तलवथर सन हमलथ कर पदयथ धजससन रपव धसर मह तलवथर कक चहट आयद। ममकन शदकर दथपहनथ हथथ टल ट गयथ व पवकथस कन पर उपससथत लहगन नन बदच बचथव पकयथ जथतन हहए अपभयसकगण नन जथन सन मथरनन कक धमकक दद। उक तहरदर कन आधथर पर सभद छछ अपभयसकगण कन पवरद एफ० आई० आर० पदजदकक त हहआ। पववनचनथ कन दमरथन अपभयसकगण कह अनयत उपससथपत कन आधथर पर सदधलप नहह पथयथ गयथ। अनयत उपससथपत कथ सथकय बचथव सथकय कथ पवषय हह और उसकन सदबदध मह बचथव सथकय कथ अवसर आनन पर उसन अपभयसकगण कह पसतसत करनन कथ अवसर पथप हहगथ। बचथव पक नन जह यह तकर पदयथ हह पक कन वल पररवथर कन लहगन कह परदपकत करथयथ गयथ वह गथह नहह हह कयनपक धथरथ- 319 दद० प० स० मह तलब करनन हनतस वथदद मसकदमथ कथ मसखय परदकथ हद आवशयक हह उसकक धजरह हहनथ भद आवशयक नहह हह। वतरमथन वथद मह तदन सथकद परदपकत हहए हह और तदनन हद सथकद चहटपहल सथकद हह। अतछ घटनथ पर इनकक उपससथपत सन पकसद भद पकथर सन इदकथर नहह पकयथ जथ सकतथ और तदनन सथपकयन नन हद पवचथरण कन दमरथन पकयन गयन कथनन मह उपरहक सभद नथपमत अपभयसकगण धजनमह पसतथपवत अपभयसक भद हह कह घटनथ मह सदधलप हहनथ बतथयथ हह। पतथवलद पर उपलबध सथमगद सन पसतथपवत अपभयसकगण बबलल, अषभसजथ व आलहक कह अदतगरत धथरथ- 147, 148, 323/149, 325/149, 308/149, 504, 506 भथ० द० पव० मह पवचथरण पकयन जथनन कथ पयथरप सथकय उपलबध हह। उपरहक पररससथपतयन मह पसतथपवत अपभयसकगण बबलल रथय, अषभसजथ रथय व आलहक रथय उपरहक धथरथओद मह तलब हहनन यहगय हह। पथथरनथ पत 27 ख सवदकथर हहनन यहगय हह।"

9. I have gone through the aforesaid finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned order dated 4.11.2024 and I find that the injured witnesses and other eye witnesses of the incident, all along in their statements have taken names of the revisionists and they have also disclosed their role in the crime in question. Once the injured witnesses and other eye witnesses have categorically demonstrated the role of the revisionists in the crime in question, their defence that on the date of occurrence they were not present at the place of occurrence is a matter which can be demonstrated before the trial court while giving evidence in their defence but that cannot be considered to be gospel truth by the trial court at the stage of exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 4.11.2024.

10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Gss