Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16605 of 2019 Applicant :- Arvind Singh @ Murari Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Ratan Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No.154 of 2018 (State Vs. Jhalaru Singh & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 659 of 2017, under Sections- 452, 323, 504, 506, 386, 302, 307/34 I.P.C., Police Station- Meja, District- Allahabad, by which, the applicant's discharge application has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that arising from the occurrence, cross FIRs have been lodged by both sides. The applicant was neither named in either FIR as the assailant nor he was named as the person who was present at the time of occurrence. However, subsequently by way of certain statements, his name was introduced only for collateral reasons. The vehicle (used by the assailants) which is stated to be involved in the occurrence does not belong to the applicant's brother but to a third person. In such circumstances, it has been submitted that there are vast inconsistencies in the prosecution story which are not reconcilable, therefore, the applicant ought to have been discharged, at this stage itself.
4. Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA on the other hand submits that, at this stage, a full fledged trial is not to take place and the test that is to apply is of grave suspicion arising on the basis of the entirety of the case diary material in view of specific statements of two witnesses namely Ajay Shukla and Abhishek Shukla (injured witness). It has been submitted that the learned court below has not erred in rejecting the discharge application.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material as has been produced before the Court, at present, in view of the statements of Ajay Shukla and Abhishek Shukla as have been noted in extenso by the learned court below, it appears that the applicant has been specifically named as accused person and has been assigned role of exhortation that led to the murder of Nirendra Kumar Shukla. No minute or microscopic test has to be done, at this stage, as to inconsistencies that are being cited by learned counsel for the applicant for the purpose of reaching a conclusion of guilt or otherwise of the applicant. The test being that the learned court below should have a grave suspicion against the accused person and no further, insofar as the learned court below has formed such a grave suspicion on the basis of specific statements of two witnesses and after consideration of other material, no interference is warranted, at this stage.
6. The present application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is expected that the learned court below shall conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law, without allowing for any undue or long adjournment to either party.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Abhilash