Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3929 of 2018 Appellant :- Veer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Tripathi,Pankaj Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
This appeal under section 14-A(1) of S.C./S.T. Act has been filed against the order dated 8.6.2018 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Mahoba allowing the application 34-B of prosecution under section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoning the appellant for trial together with co-accused persons for the offences under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1(10) S.C./S.T. Act.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant has been falsely implicated in the F.I.R. lodged on the next day of alleged incident, in which appellant was also named, but upon investigation it was found that he was not involved and so exonerated by Investigating Officer; that the appellant neither abused the sister of respondent no.2 with caste name nor threatened her of life nor committed marpeet with the prosecution party; that the entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that there was no evidence against the appellant and yet on mere statements of first informant and his sister, learned trial court has summoned the appellant for trial together; that the real fact is that simple marpeet did take place between co-accused persons and first informant in which both the sides sustained injuries and co-accused Bharat Yadav, Uttam Yadav and Baba also sustained injuries at the hands of prosecution party; that learned trial court has failed to consider that powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly upon some considerable evidence; that the impugned order summoning the appellant is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the appellant and co-accused persons jointly and collectively participated in the prior incident in question and same role has been assigned to all of them in the F.I.R.; that when the respondent no.2 made a complaint to the appellant, they committed marpeet with father, mother, bhabhi and sister of respondent no.2, who sustained multiple injuries; that the allegations about injuries of co-accused persons Bharat Yadav, Uttam Yadav and Baba are false and their medical examination report specifically states " no mark of external injury was seen all over their body"; that the commission of marpeet in the incident is not disputed by the accused-persons and their defence version is that no abusing did take place on their part, cannot be considered at this stage as defence version is to be considered at the time of final disposal of trial; that the first informant and the injured witness Smt. Geeta in their statements on oath before the court have corroborated the F.I.R. version and active participation of appellant in the incident in question and there was sufficient cogent evidence on record to summon the appellant for trial together; that the appeal has been filed to delay the disposal of trial.
Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that at the stage of section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to consider the evidence and if from the evidence prima facie a case is made out against the proposed accused, he may be summoned for trial together and at this stage strict proof of offence is not required.
In view of the discussions made above, I find that there is no illegality, irregularity or incorrectness in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 Tamang