Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 806 of 2019 Revisionist :- Pratap Singh Katiyar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of the present revision, the revisionist is assailing the order dated 16.01.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat in S.S.T. No. 28 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 368 of 2016, under sections 302, 307, 504, 506, 34 IPC abd 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Rura, District Kanpur Dehat, whereby revisionist has been summoned to face trial under the aforesaid sections.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that FIR was got registered on 16.11.2016 under sections 302, 307, 504, 506, 34 and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Roora, District Rama Bai Nagar by Indrapal Chamar wherein though the name of the revisionist finds place but no active role has been attributed against him in the commission of the crime except that he was present over the site at the relevant point of time. During investigation by the police it was stated by the witnesses that the revisionist was trying to pacify the concerned persons and making the situation cool and that was the reason that the name of the revisionist was dropped in further investigation under section 172(3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of sessions where P.W.-2- Munnu while reiterating the earlier version improved his statement by specifically attributing the role of firing at him by the revisionist.
Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that the learned Magistrate has not even considered the material collected during the investigation and making out the grounds of dropping the name of the revisionist from the charge sheet and passed the order impugned. Not only this, he has not recorded his satisfaction of involvement of the revisionist in the commission of the crime and his active participation therein as contemplated in the cases of Brijendra Singh & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706, Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others reported in [(2014) 3 SCC 92] and Labhuji Amratji Thakor & Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 1349 of 2018 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 6392 of 2018) decided on 13.11.2018.
In the aforesaid backdrop, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist,in the considered opinion of this Court the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat is liable to be set aside and is, hereby, set aside.
The revision is allowed.
The matter is remanded to the court concerned for re-consideration of the application of the revisionist and decide it afresh, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, by a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 shailesh