Allahabad High Court
Bhola Nath Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1574 of 2019
Revisionist :- Bhola Nath Mishra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rohit Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 CrPC has been preferred against the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Unnao in Sessions Trial No.281 of 2018 (State Vs. Sunil and others), rejecting application of the complainant moved under Section 319 CrPC under Sections 307, 504, 506 and 427 IPC.
2. Jitu Singh was named in the FIR. However, investigating officer did not find any credible evidence against him regarding his involvement in commission of the offence and, therefore, charge-sheet was not filed against him. After PW-1, complainant (Bholanath Mishra), PW-2, brother of the complainant (Kamlashaner), PW-3 (Vipin Shukla), relative of PW-1 and PW-2 got examined in the Court, an application under Section 319 CrPC came to be filed for summoning Jitu Singh as an additional accused.
3. PW-1 and PW-2, in their evidence, reiterated their stand which they took in the complaint and statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. However, PW-3, in his statement, said that neither he knew the accused nor the assailant, who assaulted him on his leg.
4. Allegation against Jitu Singh is that he assaulted witness, PW-3 (Vipin Shukla) by barrel of double barrel gun on his left leg. However, in his evidence in the Court the said witness, PW-3 did not name Jitu Singh as the assailant. The learned trial Court, therefore, considering the evidence of PW-3 (Vipin Shukla) as well as of PW-1 and PW-2 was of the opinion that there is no cogent and credible evidence available against Jitu Singh for summoning him under Section 319 CrPC as an additional accused.
5. Mr. Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, however, submits that the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others) has held that for summoning a person, as an additional accused, cross-examination of the witness(s) is not required, but even if on the basis of examination in chief, the Court finds that the evidence against the person, who is sought to be summoned under Section 319 CrPC, is cogent and credible, which would be of more than prima facie nature to attract the offence and sort of satisfaction that if it goes un-rebutted, the same would lead to conviction, he should be summoned under Section 319 CrPC. He submits that considering the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, it cannot be said that the evidence of the two witnesses is neither cogent nor credible to summon Jitu Singh as an additional accused to face trial.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent-State, submits that there has to be some more credible evidence than the evidence of the complainant, who would reiterate his version as given in the FIR or in his statement under Section 161 CrPC. The learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that looking at the evidence of PW-3, stand of PW-1 and PW-2 is not fortified in respect of allegation against Jitu Singh. It is further submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error of law or jurisdiction in rejecting the application under Section 319 CrPC.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. If this Court looks at the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, who was allegedly assaulted by Jitu Singh, as per the FIR version and statements of PW-1 and PW-2, PW-3 has not named the said person as assailant, who caused him injury. In view thereof, I do not find any error being committed by the learned trial Court either of law or jurisdiction, while rejecting the application moved under Section 319 CrPC.
9. Therefore, this revision, being without merit and substance, is hereby dismissed. Any observation, on merit, is limited to disposal of this revision and, it should not affect the trial of other accused.
Order Date :- 4.8.2022
MVS/-
