Allahabad High Court
Pooran And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 July, 2023
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146268
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1844 of 2020
Revisionist :- Pooran And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shashi Prakash Giri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
List has been revised.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
In spite of notice, no one is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2. The case is listed peremptorily today.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against the order dated 08.05.2019, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4 / Special Judge, Mathura, in S.t. No. 103 of 2016 (State vs. Nawab and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 197A. of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Farah, district Mathura by which the application filed by prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that the first information report has been lodged against six accused persons including the revisionists and case was registered as Case Crime No. 197A of 2014. The Investigating Officer after due investigation has submitted charge sheet against Nawab and Harish Chandra and other accused persons including revisionists were exonerated. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer during investigation has not found any evidence against the revisionists for participating in the alleged offence. During trial, the prosecution has produced PW-1 Suresh Chandra who is informant, PW-2 Mahendra, who is injured witness and PW-3 Omkar Singh, who is an eye witness of the alleged occurrence.
Admittedly, PW-1, who is informant was not an eye witness and on the basis of evidence of witnesses PW-2 and PW-3, the prosecution had moved application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that since both the witnesses have levelled allegations against the revisionists namely Pooran, Vishnu and Mahesh for causing injuries to the revisionists, they may be summoned to face trial.
The trial court after considering the statements of injured witness as well as the eye witness, had summoned the revisionists to face the trial vide order dated 08.05.2019.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sagar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 389. Relevant paragraph no. 5 of the said judgment is quoted herein below :-
"The learned trial Judge after taking into consideration the material on record and so also the statements of PWs. 1 and 2 recorded a finding that neither the complainant (PW.1) nor his father (PW. 2) were eyewitnesses and it has only been stated about removal of the electric wire by the appellant and this fact was noticed by the investigating officer even when the chargesheet came to be filed and the investigating officer has not found the present appellant to have participated in the commission of crime and at least at the stage when Section 319 of the Code is to be invoked, there must be a strong and cogent evidence occurred against a person from the evidence led before the Court and taking into consideration the material available on record, was not satisfied to summon the present appellant under Section 319 of the Code and consequently rejected the application by an order dated 30.01. 2018."
In the aforesaid case, the trial court has recorded the finding that PW-1 and PW-2 were not eye witnesses of the occurrence, whereas in the present case, the learned trial court has recorded the finding that PW-2 who was injured and PW-3 was an eye witness of the occurrence, as such, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the revisionists could not help the revisionists. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionists could not point out any infirmity or illegality in the order dated 08.05.2019. No ground of interference is made out and the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
The criminal revision is dismissed, accordingly.
However, if the revisionists appear before the court below and apply for bail, the bail applications of the revisionists may be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 21.7.2023
sailesh
