Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28425 of 2018 Applicant :- Paras Kushwaha And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ali Hasan,Shionath Jaishal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Kushwaha,Vinod Kumar Singh Kushwaha Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel of opposite party no.2 and leaned A.G.A. on behalf of State.
2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that there are vast inconsistencies in the prosecution case, inasmuch as, though all the applicants have been named in the FIR, however, role had not been assigned to any of the seven accused persons as having caused the fire arm injury. During investigation, in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. both the injured as also the informant stated that fire arm injury had been caused by two of the accused persons, namely, Santosh Kushwaha and Akshay Kushwaha. However, upon further statement being recorded, they changed their statement and named the assailants as Paras and Ramesh. Certain other facts and circumstances suggesting of old dispute between the parties have also been cited to submit that prosecution story is wholly false.
3. Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 on the other hand submits that there is no inconsistency, inasmuch as, the FIR clearly suggests that all accused persons are involved in the occurrence. The role of fire arm has been assigned to two persons who had not been named in the FIR. In this regard, it is stated that no opinion can be drawn at this stage to the fact that FIR did not specify the names of the persons who has caused the fire arm injury as the FIR is not an encyclopedia containing each and every detail of the occurrence. Then as to the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is submitted that statement had wrongly been recorded by the Investigating Officer on 4.5.2016 and thereafter the case was handed over to other Investigating Officer and thereafter, the correct names of the assailants were recorded as Paras and Ramesh. As to the other applicants, it is submitted that role of exhortation had been assigned to other accused.
4. Learned A.G.A. has referred to the charge framed and submitted that at present the court below has drawn up the charge being aware of the allegation made against the applicants and that the charge is proper.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the parties, it appears that the applicants had all been accused of causing the fire arm injury and according to the further statement recorded during investigation, the role of fire arm had been assigned to accused Paras and Ramesh while the other applicants had been assigned the role of exhortation.
6. Viewed from this angle, the charge as framed does not suffer from any infirmity. All the defence that may be set up, would remain open to the applicants to be considered by the trial court without being influenced by this order. The applicants undertake not to seek undue or long adjournments in such trial. The trial may be concluded as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary or long adjournments to either of the parties.
7. The application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.9.2018 Meenu