Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2910 of 2019 Revisionist :- Toni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajeev Chaddha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
The instant criminal revision has been filed to set aside the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court-II, Hapur in S.T. No.317 of 2018 (State Versus Rinku and others) upto the extent by which the court below has refused to summon Jagat Singh and Virendra Singh for their trial.
The brief facts, as per the prosecution are that F.I.R. was lodged by Toni, the applicant specifically naming Rinku son of Krishnapal, Baniya alias Amit son of Bhopal and Krishnapal son of Ramu on the basis of suspicion that they are involved in murder of his son, Prince aged about 8 years. Thereafter, he moved an application and stated that it was at the instance and goading of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 who got the names of accused introduced in the F.I.R. whereas actually real culprits are Vikas, Deepak and Malva alias Himanshu. It is argued that evidence against the other co- accused as stated by the prosecution witnesses examined during trial was on the same whereas the trial judge has not summoned the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
I have gone through the statements of the witnesses of the F.I.R. and the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 21.08.2018 wherein he has stated that when he was scribing the F.I.R. on 24.6.2018, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 obtained his signature on the blank paper and later on got registered first information report against innocent persons as at that time he was not fully conscious. While exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the trial judge has recorded that even in his statement applicant has stated nothing incriminating to make out an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Besides it,I have gone through the statements of the witnesses and find that except conjectures and surmises there is no reliable material or evidence based on which the learned trial judge could have summoned the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
In the light of aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.
The criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 MN/-