Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1698 of 2003 Revisionist :- Salim @ Tundal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rahul Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
None present on behalf of the revisionist even in the revised list. Learned A.G.A is present.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 26.05.2003 in Sessions Trial No. 387 of 1997 (State Vs. Bauna and three others) by which the learned Session Court has rejected the application of the revisionist given under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning of opposite party no. 2.
Heard learned A.G.A.
In the said Session Trial from the side of revisionist application 62 Kh under Section 319 Cr.P.C was given for summoning opposite party no. 2 for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura on the ground that the opposite party no. 2 also caused injuries along-with other co- accused persons who are facing trial. In support the statement of P.W-1 Saleem (revisionist) was referred alleging that the witness has stated on oath that at the time of commission of the offence opposite party no. 2 was also present and he also committed marpeet with the revisionist.
From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that after hearing both the sides the learned trial court found on record that the said opposite party no.2, was not named in the F.I.R nor any witness gave statement before the Investigating Officer that he was also involved in the commission of the offence. It has been also found that P.W-1 Saleem (revisionist) did not give evidence in his examination-in-chief to the effect that opposite party no. 2 committed marpeet in the commission of the said offence. It was found that in the cross-examination some where the sentence to the effect showing participation of opposite party no. 2 has occurred and the learned trial court concluded that the same appears to be after thought and the same should not be given importance. The learned trial court rightly concluded that had opposite party no. 2 participated in the commission of the said offence his name must have been mentioned by the informant in the F.I.R itself and the revisionist could have taken his name in his examination-in-chief.
I do not find any irregularity or illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and the revision has got no force and with the lapse of time it appears to have become infructuous also.
Accordingly, revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 PS