Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7354 of 2019 Appellant :- Ramswaroop And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A.
By means of the present appeal under Section 14(A)(1) of SC/ST Act, the appellants are challenging the order dated 08.11.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hamirpur in Special Case No.21 of 2015(State Vs. Binda and others) by which the appellants have been summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. arising out of case crime no.647 of 2013 under sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Maudaha, District-Hamirpur.
Submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants are being named in the FIR but during the course of investigation, their complicity was found false and police, eventually in the charge sheet, has dropped the name of these appellants i.e. Ram Swaroop, Ram Sewak and Vinay. During the course of trial, testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 was recorded and they have taken the names of the abovesaid appellants attributing certain role in the commission of the offence.
I have perused the order impugned and the latest citation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brijendra Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706 in which in the last paragraph of the judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that if there is no material on record during the investigation which comes within the definition of "Evidence", then learned trial Judge was at least duty bound to look into this matter by forming his prima facie satisfaction. There is no such satisfaction was recorded considering that in the entire case diary, there is no whisper of the complicity of the revisionist in the commission of the offence. It is just out of blue that their names figured up in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and learned Special Judge has summoned the revisionists vide impugned order dated 08.11.2019 which is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Under the circumstances, I have got no hesitation to set-aside the order dated 08.11.2019 while remitting the matter for fresh consideration as per the ratio laid down in (i) Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2014) 3 SCC Page-92 ; (ii) Brijendra Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan 2017(100) ACC 601 (SC); (iii) Labhuji Amratji Thakor and other Vs. State of Gujrat and another 2018(15) SCAL 639; (iv) Sugreev Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and others in Criminal Appeal No.509 of 2019 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9687 of 2018; (v) Periyasami and others Vs. S. Nallasamy in Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2019 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.208 of 2019 as well as judgment of this of this Court in the case of "Deepak and another Vs. State of U.P. and another" in Criminal Revision No.1069 of 2019 and conclude the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by a well reasoned and speaking order.
With the aforesaid observations, the prayer criminal revision stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Sumit S