Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2804 of 2018 Revisionist :- Satyaveer Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anupam Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present revision has been preferred against the order dated 5.7.2018 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court no. 13, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 144/2015 (State Versus Raghvendra Singh), arising out of Crime No. 586/2014, under section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khudaganj, District Shahjahanpur.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that while it is admitted that the deceased died of poisoning and that there is no evidence led before the trial court that it was the applicants, who had administered poison to deceased and/or played any role in that. Perusal of the statement of the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 does support the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned AGA submits that the applicants had a separate living and this fact had been examined during the examination, and therefore the applicants were charged by the police.
Having considered the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, at present it appears that the summoning of the applicants under Section 304-B is pre-mature as the prosecution witness do not appear to have made any specific allegation that of the applicants had played any role in administering poison to a deceased and there is no other evidence of such occurrence either. However, in view of the other allegation with respect to the dowry made in the same statements, it cannot be said that the applicants are not liable to be summoned under section 498-A I.P.C. The same statements do bring out the case against the applicants with respect to the offence alleged under Section 498-A I.P.C.
Consequently, insofar as the applicants have been summoned under section 304-B I.P.C., the impugned order dated 5.7.2018 is hereby set-aside. Accordingly, the present revision is partly allowed, and with respect to the offence alleged under Section 498-A I.P.C., that order is maintained.
Also, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case for the offence alleged under Section 498-A I.P.C. is concerned, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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 Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the aforesaid directions, this revision is disposed of in respect of offence alleged under section 498-A I.P.C.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Prakhar