AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.C. Agarwal, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 7.7.2010, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 13, Varanasi in ST. No. 338 of 2001, State v. Vinod Pandey, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 307, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Phoolpur, district Varanasi, whereby learned Sessions Judge decided to frame charge under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 307, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act against the revisionist and a date for framing charge was fixed.
Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that charge u/s 307, I.P.C. is not made out against the revisionist. It was contended that there is no evidence on record to show that revisionist Vinod Pandey fired at the police party or administrative officers.
A perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that on 21.5.2001 in village Karmi, boundary wall of airport was being constructed. A crowd of 500-600 people assembled, S.D.M. was surrounded. The crowd was angry and did not permit the construction of the boundary wall, unless full compensation was paid. The miscreants started beating officers and also pelting stones. Few peoples were taken into custody and sent to the police station. In the meantime, revisionist Vinod Pandey instigated the crowd to snatch the arms of the police officers. Stones were pelted from three sides. Police force and the S.D.M. were surrounded. The miscreants also started firing. Police also fired in the air. Few persons were injured.
From the narration of the F.I.R. and statement of witness recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, it is apparent that an unlawful assembly was present on the spot consisting of 500-600 persons, who were pelting stones at the State machinery. Fire was also resorted to by persons in" the crowd. The revisionist was the leader of the unlawful assembly and was instigating the crowd to attack the police force and administrative officers.
In these circumstances, framing of charge u/s 307, I.P.C. against the revisionist cannot be said to be unjustified.
I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.