NAVNEESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist has filed the instant criminal revision, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 20.5.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-2, Saharanpur in S.,T. No. 621 of 2010, State of U.P. Versus Anang Pal and others under Sections 452, 323, 324,325, 506 and 308 IPC, P.S. Nakud, District- Saharanpur whereby the revisionist has been summoned as an accused exercising jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and leaned counsel representing O.P. No.2 and have also perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist though was named in the FIR, was not charge-sheeted as no incriminating material against him could be found. Further he was a student and had appeared in examination on the date of the alleged incident, therefore, there was no possibility of his participation in the alleged incident. Learned counsel has further submitted that the statement of Shiv Kumar alone has been recorded who is an interested witness. There is a cross-version of the alleged incident and the persons from the side of the revisionist, have also sustained injuries. The impugned order is completely illegal and manifestly erroneous as the court below has only found a prima facie case to have been made out against the revisionist and has failed to consider as to whether on the basis of the available evidence against the revisionist whether there were sufficient chances for his conviction.