Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3220 of 2018 Revisionist :- Raju Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Imran Mabood Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 21.8.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 49 of 2018 (State Vs. Jagroop Singh and others), under Sections 323, 504 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Thariyaun, District Fatehpur, by which the applicant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while the applicant had been named in the FIR, he had not been charge sheeted. Further, relying on the statement of the injured eye witness, it is submitted that it is an admitted case between the parties that subsequent to the occurrence the said injured witness had been got examined at the District Hospital, Fatehpur on 19.12.2015 and an X-ray report was prepared on 21.12.2015, upon that witness being taken to the District Hospital, Fatehpur by the police. Relying on the document claimed to be the injury report prepared at the Fatehpur, District Hospital, it is submitted that there was no bone injury noted in that examination, on 21.12.2015. It is thus submitted that the opposite party no.2 had obtained a manipulated injury report of the T.B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad dated 27.12.2015.
4. As to the nature of injury, it is again submitted that there is a vital inconsistency inasmuch as while the injury report relied upon by the prosecution prepared at Fatehpur discloses an injury on the temporal region, the C.T. Scan being relied discloses fracture on the parital bone. As such, it is submitted that no strong satisfaction could have been reached by the learned court below to summon the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the document being relied upon as the injury report dated 21.12.2015 (annexed with the affidavit in support of the present application), is not part of the case diary material and, therefore, no conclusion may be drawn on that basis. As to the other aspect, it is submitted that at this stage, statement of the injured witness is specific and categorical as to the involvement of the applicant. The nature of injury suffered clearly constitutes commission of offence as alleged and at this stage. It would be premature to draw any conclusion as to the exact nature of injury or part of the body where it may have been suffered, those being matters that may be examined during the trial.
6. Sri Ratnesh Nandan Singh, learned A.G.A. also submits that at this stage further factual examination of the case may not be warranted.
7. Having considered the argument so advanced, it is seen that the learned court below in the first place has considered the evidence received by it both in the shape of oral testimony as also medical report. Thereafter, having taken note of certain judgments, it has reached the conclusion that at present, there is sufficient material to proceed against the applicant.
8. The nature of injuries being a factual aspect that may require evidence to be recorded before any conclusion may be reached in that regard, at present in so far as the commission of offence is concerned, the evidence recorded before the trial court appears to be clearly as may give rise to a strong satisfaction with the learned court below that the applicant was involved in the commission of the offence. No error is found in the reasoning of the learned counsel below to that extent.
9. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
10. With the aforesaid directions, this revision is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 Mini