Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1006 of 2016 Revisionist :- Sarnam Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Raj Kumar Mishra,Jyotish Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Jyotish Awasthi, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. Notices issued to opposite party nos. 2 to 9 have been served personally but no one has appeared on their behalf.
The present criminal revision has been moved against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Etawah in Special Case No. 150 of 2015 (Sarnam Singh Vs. Balveer Singh and others) by which aforesaid case of the revisionist filed against the opposite party nos. 2 to 9 has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that at the stage of summoning the court below has only to see as to whether prima facie offences are made out against opposite parties or not but in the present case from the material evidence it is very clear that offences are made out against the opposite parties but the court below has drawn wrong inference and rejected the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by holding that “ऐसा वि#वि$त हो रहा है वि इस न्यायालय ा क्षेत्राधि3 ार उत्पन्न रने े लिलए आ#े$ े म ान मे तोडफोड रने ी घटना ो ड ै ती ी घटना ा अंजाम $ेने े लिलए ं टीले तार, ईट, सरिरया, सीमेन्ट ए#ं गाड,र जबरन ट्रेक्टर मे भर ले जाने ी बात ही गयी है। यवि$ वि#पक्षीगण द्वारा उक्त सामान ो ट्र ैक्टर में भर र ले जाया गया होता तो इस ी शि7 ायत प्रथम स्तर पर पुलिलस ो ी गयी होती। पलिु लस ो ी गयी शि7 ायत ी ोई प्रधित भी $ालि<ल नहीं ी गयी है, बल्कि? रजिजस्ट्र ी रसी$ $ालि<ल है।”
Whereas the complaint of the revisionist and the application made by him to Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah clearly states that:-
"घटना वि$नां 22.04.2015 ो समय रीब 2 बजे वि$न उपरोक्त वि#पक्षीगण ए राय हो र नाजायज असलाह ले र आये और माँ बहन ी भ$$ी-
भ$$ी गालिलयां $ेते हुये प्राथD े <ेत पर लगे हुये टीले तार ो उ<ाडने लगे जब मैंने उपरोक्त वि#पक्षीगणों ो तार उ<ाडने से मना वि या तो उपरोक्त वि#पक्षीगणों ने हमला#र होते हुये मेरे घर ी $ी#ालें विगरा $ीं तथा टीले तार ईटें, सरिरया्, सीमेन्ट, गाटर आवि$ ट्र ैक्टर में भर र, ोई ाय,#ाही रने पर जान से मार $ेने ी 3म ी $ेते हुये चले गये।”
Considering fact and circumstances of the case, I find that the impugned judgement and order of the court below is perverse, illegal and against evidence of the revisionist produced in the form of his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
In view of above, the criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 25.02.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Etawah is set aside. Trial court is directed to consider the evidence produced by the revisionist in the form of his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 MN/-
2 of 2