Namit Pratap Singh State Of U.P. And 3 Others v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Kumar
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5028 of 2024 Namit Pratap Singh State Of U.P. And 3 Others Versus .....Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Kumar : Rakesh Kumar Rathore, G.A., Pradyumn Kumar Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and perused the material on record. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Mainpuri by which the application moved by the revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
Legal Reasoning
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that initially F.I.R. was lodged against the three accused persons namely Prem Pal, Karan Bahadur, Chandra Prakash and Narayan, after completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer dropped the name of other accused persons namely Karan Bahadur, Chandra Prakash and Narayan, and the chargesheet was submitted against single accused namely Prem Pal, thereafter charges were framed against the accused Prem Pal (now deceased) under Sections 504, 506, 307 IPC. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that on dated 19.04.2021 some election was going on in the village and the revisionist and opposite parties were contestants in the said election. It has submitted that on dated 04.05.2021 the revisionist and his brother namely Amit Pratap Singh were heading towards their village on motorcycle, wherein the accused persons were found to be standing there, who arrived by vehicle no. UP 84V0003 and the accused persons opened indiscriminate firing on the brother of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that, while accused persons were firing the revisionist was having a close look, as to who fired upon which part of the body of the brother of the revisionist and the revisionist was very careful in examining 2 CRLR No. 5028 of 2024 the fact that the bullet fired by the accused persons namely Prem Pal was shot fired on the elbow of brother of the revisionist, accused Karan Bahadur shot fired on the lower part of the hand and the shot fired by accused Narayan escaped touching head of the brother of the revisionist, but by all grace of God, the brother of the revisionist could save his life. It has next been submitted that on hearing the sound of fire, the revisionist and other persons arrived at the spot. Learned counsel for the revisionist has lastly submitted that there is a sufficient evidence on record, but the learned Session Judge, has dismissed the application of the revisionist filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C and the said order dated 27.08.2024 is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 has submitted that opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been falsely implicated in the present case and no such incident whatsoever, took place, the revisionist and his brother has made a concocted story, in order to give a colour of the said incident. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 has further submitted that there were elections in the village and to wreak vengeance in respect of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 the present FIR was lodged. He next submitted that the investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and the Investigating Officer of the said case found that, even the charges levelled against accused namely Prem Pal (deceased) were not found sufficient and a false charge-sheet was submitted against the deceased Prem Pal (now deceased). However, during the course of trial, that too at the time, when the testimony of PW-1 has been recorded, the said accused Prem Pal passed away. Thereafter, the present application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed to falsely implicate the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and further prayed that the present revision is devoid of merit and is liable to dismissed. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material available on record, the version of the F.I.R. as much as the accused persons were found to be standing, who arrived from vehicle no. UP 84V0003 and the statement made in the F.I.R. that upon hearing the sound of fire, the revisionist and other people from the village arrived at the place of incident. However, the same goes contrary to the fact that, if the revisionist was all alone moving with the motorcycle then there was no question of arriving on the spot after hearing the sound of fire, therefore, both the statements contradicts each other. However certain documents have been filed by the revisionist, wherein the brother of the revisionist was admitted to some Sai Hospital and Trauma Centre, Agra on dated 05.05.2021 and discharged on 09.05.20201, so far as diagnosis of gun shot injury is concerned there is a question of fact on the said certificate and other medical papers, those relates to Ortho notes, the same is neither on any letter heads or stamped by Sai Hospital, 3 CRLR No. 5028 of 2024 authorities and signed by any Doctor by name, the medical paper, which is of dated 05.05.2021 wherein it is endorsed on the said paper that "Mujhe apna mareez apni marzi se bharti nahi karna hai iski zimmedari meri hai" purportedly stated by the patient which, shows that the condition of the patient was not serious. There is a certificate of the ambulance by which the brother of the revisionist was taken to some hospital on dated 04.05.2021 at 10:30 P.M. which is about 3-1/2 hours later then the time of incident (at 7:00 P.M.) which shows that brother of the deceased waited for more then 3-1/2 hours to reach the hospital, a perusal of order dated 27.08.2024 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Mainpuri reveals that the learned District & Sessions Judge, Mainpuri has considered each and every aspect of the case and after going through the entire material on record has passed a detailed speaking order, there is no infirmity in the said order passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. Hence, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 6. The present revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. September 12, 2025 Vikram (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad