Allahabad High Court
Siya Ram And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 663 of 2021
Revisionist :- Siya Ram And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri G. P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.01.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Farrukhabad in S. T. No. 0115 of 2016 (State v. Ravendra alias Ravindra and others) bearing Case Crime No. 391 of 2015 under Section 147, 148, 149, 232, 504, 307, 302, 325/34 of I.P.C., Police Station Shamshabad, District Farrukhabad.
As per F.I.R., the prosecution case is that on 07.12.2015, the informant, his son Dharampal, nephew Gyan Singh, Shyam Singh had gone to their field and right then the accused revisionists who were ten in number had opposed ploughing of the field and at this, out of anger, the accused revisionists, who were armed with country made pistol, sharp edged weapon, had assaulted upon the complainant's side in which Shyam Singh and Gyan Singh received serious injuries and Dharampal had died. Post mortem report of the deceased has not been annexed by the learned counsel for the revisionist.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order has been erroneously passed by the court below summoning the revisionists to face trial with the co-accused against whom charge sheet was submitted without having any evidence on record. The statements of PW1 & PW2 have been annexed by the learned counsel for the revisionist. Both the said witnesses have supported the prosecution version as mentioned in the F.I.R. The injured witness Gyan Singh has clearly stated that on 07.12.2015, at about 08:00AM, the complainant side was irrigating their field and the revisionist side was ploughing their field and they had damaged their med which was opposed by the complainant side, due to which the revisionist side assaulted the complainant side with rifle, lathi-danda, iron rod, etc. and in this occurrence, the informant and his brother had received injury. The deceased had died who was got admitted in District Hospital, Farrukhabad. Cross-examination of both the witnesses have been made at length but nothing could be shown by the learned counsel for the revisionists as to how it is being stated by him that the said order has been wrongly passed because the role of the revisionists have clearly emerged from the statements of PW1 & PW2 and if the evidence which has come on record is left unrebutted, this case would result into conviction of the revisionists.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 in paragraph nos. 105 and 106 has held as under:
"105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only 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."
"106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, 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. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if 'it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence' is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are not 'for which such person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."
In view of the above law, it is apparent that for invoking provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. there must be evidence much stronger than the evidence of prima-facie nature. The evidence should be so strong on record that if the same is left unrebutted, it would result in conviction of the accused. The evidence should not be merely of the kind which raises doubt prima-facie only that there could be involvement of the accused because that kind of evidence would be sufficient only to frame charge. The evidence which has come in the present case if tested on the touchstone of above position of law, I find that in the present case, there is sufficient evidence on record against the accused-applicant on the basis of which, the applicant has been summoned to face trial rightly and this Court does not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the said order of the court below.
This revision deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.3.2021
VPS
