Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2848 of 2018 Revisionist :- Najar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present revision application is directed against the order dated 28.07.2018, by which two charges have been framed against the applicant.
3. The solitary argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that though the police had charged the applicant for offence under Section 302 IPC, however, the said conclusion was not supported by a single parcha of the case diary and that the deceased had suffered a single fire arm injury which was ascribed to one of the accused namely Ajendra whose name has been expunged from the charge sheet. In such fact, it has been submitted that the learned Court below has completely erred in rejecting the discharge application filed by the applicant and in framing charge for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
4. Learned AGA upon instructions submits that a gun shot injury as alleged to have been caused by one Ajendra (co- accused) as per the FIR narration and as per the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation. Nevertheless at present there does exist the case material against the applicant of having participated in the occurrence and having used the fire arm in that occurrence though it would remain a matter of trial to be examined and established whether the injury had been caused by the applicant or the other person.
5. He would further submit the fact that Ajendra who had been named in the FIR as the person who caused fire arm injury has not yet been charged, would remain a matter to be examined separately and in any case it does not lead any inference in favour of the applicant at this stage.
6. Having considered the argument so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, non framing of charge against Ajendra cannot be cited as a reason to claim benefits of discharge at this stage. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, the other inadequacy that have been sought and pointed out in framing of charge based on a single gun shot injury would remain a matter to be established during trial and no inference may be drawn at this stage.
7. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed, other remedy would remain open to the applicant to raise at the appropriate stage.
Order Date :- 25.9.2018 Lbm/-