Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 126 of 2019 Revisionist :- Jagannath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Chandra Jeet Singh,Ran Jeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 26.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Session Judge (F.T.C.), Jhansi in Sessions Trial No.127 of 2018 (State Vs. Dayanand and others) arising out of Case Crime No.11 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Raksha, District Jhansi.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that one FIR has been lodged on 25.1.2018 by the revisionist against the opposite party nos.2 to 8 and other three persons, which was registered as Case Crime No.11 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Raksha, District Jhansi, in which ultimately police conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet only against three persons, namely, Dayanand, Dashrath and Smt. Munni Devi. Therefore, he has moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 12.10.2018, which was rejected by the Court below vide order dated 26.10.2018.
Apart from mentioning the name of all 10 persons in the FIR, statement of P.W.1-informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has disclosed the name of all ten persons, but even though police has submitted charge sheet only against three persons. Again before the Court below, P.W.1 in his statement dated 12.10.2018 given the name of all ten persons and moved application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the Court below without considering his statement.
Learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that no case is made out for summoning the accused persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the reason that except the name of the accused persons mentioned by the informant-P.W.1 in the FIR as well as in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no independent witness, in whose statement name of other accused finds place. He further submitted that the Court below has rightly rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as there is no evidence against the revisionist.
In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab; Laws (SC)-2014-1-19, Brijendra Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan; 2017 Law Suit (SC) 484 and Labhuji Amratji Thakor and others Vs. State of Gujrat and another;2018 (15) SCALE 39 evidence must be placed before the Court and in the present case, except the statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in capacity of P.W.1 before the Court, nothing was found against the revisionist, therefore, the Court below has rightly rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
I have perused the application dated 12.10.2018 filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C and other relevant documents as well as judgment relied by the learned counsel for the revisionist. In his application, the revisionist has mentioned the name of alleged accused and reiterated the same before the trial Court and that is the only ground to summon the revisionist. In the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Jhansi has given clear cut finding that except the statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in capacity of P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief, no other witnesses have given statement against the revisionist nor any other evidence is produced. He has mentioned the name of independent witnesses and their statements were recorded, but name of revisionist was not disclosed by them.
By perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it is very much clear that the Apex Court has clearly held that for summoning the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., there must be prima facie cogent evidence, non-rebuttal of which may lead to conviction and here except the statements of informant, there is no evidence available on record.
In view of the facts and circumstances as well as law laid down by this Court, there is no merit in the revision and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Junaid