Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1786 of 2018 Revisionist :- Brijraj Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Nazrul Islam Jafri,Gufran Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Dubey
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gufran Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 and Sri MPS Gaur, learned AGA alongwith Sri Abhinav Tripathi, appearing for the State.
This revision has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Etawah allowing an application under Section 319 CrPC and summoning the revisionist to stand his trial under Sections 147, 148, 302, 504 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act in ST No.132 of 2015 (State Vs. Vinod @ Chhotu & Ors.).
The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist is that the learned Sessions Judge has exercised powers under Section 319 CrPC casually and without adhering to the standards of a very strong case which should be more than a prima facie case required to summon an accused under Section 319 CrPC. Learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist has emphasized that the Investigating Officer found the location of the revisionist at the relevant time at Etawah, away from the place of occurrence that is located at Village Killi, precisely at Killi Tiraha at Sundal Lal Tent House. The mobile location of the revisionist being a distance away from the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer has relied also on the statements of independent witnesses who testified clearly to the revisionist being at Etawah at the time of occurrence to exculpate him.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brijendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2017 Law Suit (SC) 484 to urge that the power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and not in a casual and cavalier manner. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than a prima facie that is required at the time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction where if the evidence went unrebutted would result in conviction. It is submitted that the court has not recorded this kind of a satisfaction of a more than prima facie case.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have opposed the motion to admit this revision to hearing. It is their submission that in the present case the statement of the first informant, opposite party no.2 here, who got the FIR registered is in accordance with facts and clear. He is an eye-witness to the occurrence and has clearly nominated the revisionist under whose directions the murder was committed. He has for good motive and reason, and, with complete particulars, described the role of exhortation played by the revisionist. It is pointed that the Trial Judge has taken into consideration the evidence of PW-1 in the witness-box, the case set up by him in the FIR and the statement under Section 161 CrPC made by the first informant before the police, all of which are unwavering.
It is submitted that the Trial Judge has also considered the basis on which the police have exculpated the revisionist and found that the inference of the Investigating Officer based on the location of the revisionist's mobile number at Etawah places him at a distance of 8 to 10 kms. from the place of occurrence which can be covered in a short period of 10 to 15 minutes. The Trial Court, thus, has also looked into the basis on which the police exculpated the revisionist and finding the evidence on record clearly to be more than a mere prima facie evidence has exercised powers which cannot be faulted.
The Court has perused the order impugned and finds that the learned Sessions Judge has indeed considered the evidence in the dock by the first informant, PW-1 carefully, finding it to be consistent with his version in the FIR and the statement to the police under Section 161 CrPC assigning to the revisionist the role of exhortation and shooting. The learned Judge in the Trial Court has also considered the material on the basis of which the police exculpated the revisionist and has still found it to be a case which discloses a case of exhorting others to shoot and also shooting.
The trial Judge has, in particular, taken into consideration the short distance between the place where the mobile location of the revisionist was determined by the police to exculpate him and the short period of time required to travel from that location to the place of occurrence. On these facts the learned Trial Judge has found it to be a more than prima facie case to summon the revisionist to stand his trial.
In the opinion of this Court good satisfaction by the Trial Judge of the required standard and degree has been recorded on parameters determined in Brijendra Singh (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Their Lordships' further decision in S. Mohammed Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 226. The impugned order in the considered opinion of this Court does not call for any interference.
This revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Shahroz