Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4589 of 2018 Appellant :- Moti Prajapati And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
The appeal has been filed under section 14-A(1) of S.C./S.T. Act against the summoning order dated 21.7.2018 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Ghazipur in S.S.T. No.48 of 2012, Case Crime No.317 of 2011, under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Birno, District Ghazipur.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellants contends that appellants have been falsely implicated in the F.I.R. due to election rivalry, as the appellant no.1 was village Pradhan and appellant no.2 is his nephew; that the entire prosecution story is false and concocted; that upon detailed investigation, the Investigating Officer had filed charge sheet, exonerating appellants, as the witnesses had stated that appellants had intervened and pacified the matter; that the trial is pending against other charge sheeted accused- persons; that during trial, upon statement of first informant and application moved by prosecution before the Sessions Judge, the appellants have been summoned for trial together under the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C.; that there is no prima facie evidence against appellants and the learned trial court has acted wrongly in holding that if the evidence given by P.W.1 stands as such, it will be sufficient for convicting the appellants; that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, else the appellants, who are village Pradhan and nephew of village Pradhan will suffer irreparably by facing trial.
Per contra, learned AGA supported the impugned order and contended that as per averments made in F.I.R. when the first informant and Rajanikant approached him for obtaining information of Mahamaya Scheme, appellant no.1 thrown them on the ground and called co-accused persons, who all committed marpeet with them with kicks and fists and also abused them with caste name; that since the appellant no.1 was village Pradhan so due to his influence he and his nephew were not charge sheeted by Investigating Officer; that there is sufficient strong prima facie evidence against appellants for summoning them under section 319 Cr.P.C.
Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that section 319 Cr.P.C. provides that "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-
(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then-
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and witnesses re-heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."
In F.I.R. specific allegations have been made against appellants supported with injury report and the first informant in his statement on oath before the trial court has made specific allegations against them. In view of statement of P.W.1, there is sufficient prima facie evidence against appellants for their trial together and at this stage, strict proof of allegations, is not required.
In view of discussions made above, I find that learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show any illegality, irregularity or incorrectness in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Tamang