RAM BABU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. C. Jain, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists, learned A. G. A. for O. P. No. 1 and Sri Amar Saran, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2-complaint.

(2.) THROUGH this revision the revisionist seek to challenge the order dated 27-6-2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi under Section 319 Cr. P. C. summoning them as accused in S. T. No. 112 of 2000. Noticed had been issued to the complainant-opposite party No. 2 also as per the order dated 11-7-2001 and he put in appearance through his Counsel to oppose the revision, which is opposed by learned A. G. A. also on behalf of the State-opposite party No. 1.

(3.) ANOTHER argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionists is that as per the testimony of Doctor examined as P. W. 1, the deceased had received a single gun shot wound of entry and similarly injured, Santosh Kumar also received single injury of fire-arm. As per Section 149 of I. P. C. , every member of unlawful assembly is guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of common object. As per the F. I. R. and according to the evidence of eye-witness, Suresh Kumar, P. W. 2 (who also happens to be informant), all the 10 accused persons came to the spot and had opened fire. If it were so, they were members of unlawful assembly with common object of killing, Pramod Kumar and injuring others. As mentioned above, as per Section 149 of I. P. C. , every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of common object. Evidence having come against 9 revisionists before the Court as per the testimony of Suresh Kumar, the Court was justified to summon them under Section 319 of Cr. P. C. It is not the stage of critically analysing the ultimate result of the entire testimony which has to be done at the time of decision of the case. Therefore, this submission also of learned Counsel for the revisionists does not carry conviction.