Sandeep Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

S.C. Agarwal, J.—Parcha filed by Sri S. K. Srivastava on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.

This revision u/s 397/401, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 7.6.2011, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Saharanpur in S.T. No. 554 of 2010 under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C, P.S. Sarsawan, district Saharanpur whereby the revisionist Sandeep Kumar was summoned u/s 319, Cr. P.C. to face trial under Sections 307 and 302, I.P.C.

Heard Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri S. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the two witnesses namely Vineet Kumar (P.W. 1) and Man Singh (P.W. 2) are chance witnesses and their presence at the spot is highly suspect. The injured witness Krishan Pal alias Tinku has not yet been examined, but in his statement recorded u/s 164, Cr. P.C, he has not specified any role to the revisionist, but has specifically stated that the victim was assaulted by co-accused Narendra.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the revisionist and co-accused Narendra took the deceased from his house in a Car and it is for the revisionist to explain under what circumstances the deceased met his maker. It was further submitted that the two eyewitnesses Vineet Kumar (P.W. 1) and Man Singh (P.W. 2) have specifically stated that the deceased was caught hold by Sandeep Kumar and was stabbed by Narendra.

Even from the statement recorded u/s 164, Cr. P.C. of injured witness Krishan Pal @ Tinku, the presence of revisionist Sandeep Kumar at the time of incident is apparent. The testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is not to be scrutinized threadbare at this stage and only a prima facie case is to be seen. Learned trial court has also recorded a finding that evidence against the revisionist is of such a nature which may result in his conviction. In these circumstances, I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

Revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

However, in view of the fact that only the role of catching hold has been assigned to the revisionist, it is directed that if the revisionist surrenders before the Court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail be considered by the courts below expeditiously.