Allahabad High Court
Gaya Sahani vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 May, 2024
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84242
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6353 of 2023
Revisionist :- Gaya Sahani
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pradeep Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
This criminal revision has been nominated to this Bench by Hon'ble The Chief Justice.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 4.10.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Gorakhpur in Session Trial No. 186 of 2017, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Police Station Rajghat, District Gorakhpur.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the revisionist was named in the F.I.R. but during the course of investigation, his complicity was not found to be established as a result he was exonerated. During trial the statements of P.W. 1 Anamika Baranwal, P.W. 2 Arun Kumar Baranwal and P.W. 3 Avnesh Baranwal were recorded in which they again stated about the complicity of present revisionist in commission of offence with other co-accused persons and an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved on the part of prosecution on which the order in question was passed by the learned trial court without considering the material on record and also the fact that the conviction of the revisionist cannot be said to be possible. Further submitted that the statement of witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation in which they did not disclose the name of present revisionist but during trial they made improvement and again reiterated his name. It is also submitted that all these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned trial court while passing the order in question, therefore, it cannot be said to be lawful and liable to be set aside and revision to be allowed.
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant Arun Kumar Baranwal against the present revisionist and other co-accused persons with specific allegation against present revisionist also. During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer did not collect proper material and recorded the statement of the informant and injured even though revisionist was exonerated. Before the learned trial court the informant was examined as P.W.1 and injured as P.W.2 and also eye witness as P.W.3 who supported the prosecution version. In this way, the complicity of the present revisionist in committing the offence as mentioned in the F.I.R. is established. At this stage it cannot be concluded that conviction of the revisionist is not possible in any way. The contradictions in the statements of the witnesses can also not be said to be a ground for discarding the testimony of injured and eye witness. Keeping in view all these facts and evidence on record, the learned trial court passed the order in question while allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in which there is no illegality or impropriety but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, version in the F.I.R. the statements of witnesses as recorded before the learned trial court and also the order in question, it appears that in F.I.R. the complicity of present revisionist was disclosed by the informant and during trial the informant was examined as P.W.1 though she was not eye witness. P. W.2 Arun Kumar Baranwal who was injured in the incident was also examined who stated on oath about the complicity of the present revisionist for committing the offence against him and also P.W. 3 Avanesh Baranwal said to be eye witness has stated on oath about the complicity of the revisionist. At this stage the testimony of injured witness cannot be unreliable and cannot be said to be discarded. In this way, on the basis of material on record and statement of injured and eye witnesses, the order passed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be illegal and improper or beyond material on record, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024
Anurag Singh
