Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1246 of 2016 Revisionist :- Jitendra Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised.
None is present for Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 19.4.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Ballia, whereby application of the revisionist/informant under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for summoning O.P. Nos.2 to 4, Ravi Pratap Singh, Bittu Singh and Babloo Singh was rejected on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence against them.
As per prosecution version on 11.2.2012 at about 6.00 p.m. accused Tej Bahadur Singh, Dayanand Singh, Ravi Pratap Singh, Anjani Singh, Nirmal Singh, Vir Bahadur Singh, Bittu Singh, W. Singh and Sujit Singh have assaulted the informant Jitendra Singh with kick, fist and bricks. In the meantime accused Dayanand Singh, Tej Bahadur and Ravi Pratap Singh have fired on Rana Pratap Singh, Chhotey Lal, Pankaj Singh and Deandayal Singh due to which they sustained grievous injuries.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that O.P. Nos.2 to 4 Ravi Pratap Singh, Bittu Singh and Babloo Singh are named in the FIR. There is sufficient evidence against all these accused persons even though learned trial court has not summoned them.
Learned A.G.A. has contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court.
Perused the impugned order dated 19.4.2016 passed by the trial court.
From the impugned order dated 19.4.2016 it is evident that informant Jitendra Kumar Singh has sustained two injuries and Pankaj Singh has also sustained two injuries. There is no injury on any other person from the informants' side. On the basis of evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order. The impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge is based on reasoning and is not perverse.
I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
Accordingly, revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 T. Sinha