DAYAWATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Dhiraj Srivastava, Advocate for the respondent no.2.

(2.) By this revision, the revisionists have challenged the order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, court No.4, Ghaziabad in S.T. No.1768 of 2009, whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionists have been summoned to face trial along with other accused Satish.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are that a report was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against Satish son of Ram Niwas, Dayawati (revisionist no.1) and Rajbala (revisionist no.2), which gave rise to Case Crime No.46 of 2009 at P.S. Bahadurganj, District Ghaziabad. However, upon investigation, police laid charge sheet only against Satish. During trial, statement of P.W.1 (Satish-the informant), P.W.2 (Km. Neetu, daughter of informant) and P.W.3 (Smt. Kusum, wife of informant), who were all injured in the incident, were recorded. On the strength of their statements, the court below by its order dated 12.03.2012 summoned Dayawati and Rajbala @ Brijbala in exercise of its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2012, a Criminal Revision No.1125 of 2012 was filed before this Court, which was disposed of with direction to the court below to pass a fresh order, strictly in accordance with law. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the court below passed a fresh order, after considering the evidence led before it as also various judgments of the Apex Court, thereby holding that there is sufficient evidence on record, in the form of the statement of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, to draw satisfaction about the involvement of the revisionists in the crime for which they must be tried together along with the other accused.