Allahabad High Court
Govardhan Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 13 July, 2016
Bench: Prabhat Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 23 (A.F.R.)
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3683 of 2014
Revisionist :- Govardhan Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Hemendra Pratap Singh,S.K.Pandey -Ii
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised. Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri S.K. Pandey-II, learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 are present.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Mathura in S.T. No.53 of 2013 (State v. Digambar and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 323, 324, 504, 506/34 I.P.C. (Case Crime No.171 of 2010), Police Station Chhata, District Mathura, whereby the application moved by the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the opposite parties no.2 to 4 to face the trial has been rejected.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After going through the F.I.R., it is that the alleged accused persons, namely, Manoj, Jiwan Lal and Mahender are named as accused persons. In the oral evidence of P.W.-1, Govardhan Singh also above named accused persons have been assigned the specific role in the alleged occurrence. The injury reports of the injured Babu Lal and Om Prakash also reveal the certain injuries which fortify the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1750 of 2008 (Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab), dated 10.01.2014.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon the judgements of the Supreme Court in Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab, LAWS (SC)-2009-5-225 and Ram Singh v. Ram Niwas, LAWS (SC)-2009-5-138.
This is a case where the alleged accused persons were named in the F.I.R. and in the evidence of the informant, Govardhan Singh. The court concerned in the impugned order dated 18.10.2014 has discussed the evidence and the material available on record but it has oversighted the fact that the alleged accused persons were named in the F.I.R. and also assigned specific role during the commission of the crime and this has been reiterated in the oral evidence of P.W.-1, Govardhan Singh.
The legal maxim "A verbis legis non est recedendum" which means, "from the words of law, there must be no departure" has to be kept in mind. Thus, there must not be any other interpretation of Section 319 Cr.P.C.
The impugned order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Mathura suffers from legal infirmity and deserves to be set aside. Resultantly, revision is liable to be allowed.
The criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Mathura is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 13.7.2016
S.Sharma
