RAHUL ALIAS BHURA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. and perused the records. The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 13.12.2011 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Case No. 1894 of 2011 summoned the revisionists under Section 307 I.P.C. to face the trial. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 4.2.2011 at about 4 p.m. the revisionists came on a tractor armed with tamancha and lathi. They had assaulted the complainant's father Raj Kumar with lathi and one accused Rahul @ Bhura had fired with his pistol at him, which hit on his leg. The first information report was lodged at about 6.20 p.m. on the same day under Sections 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. as case Crime No. 67 of 2011. Prior to the lodging of the first information report the injured was taken to the District Hospital where he was medically examined at about 4.30 p.m. where the doctor found the gun shot entry and exit wound below the right knee and contusion on the left shoulder caused by hard blunt object. The investigation was entrusted to the Investigating Officer but on account of perfunctory investigation by him the matter was handed over to the S.I.S. who submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The charges were framed under Sections 324,504 and 506 I.P.C. and the revisionists were stood for trial. The statements of the complainant was recorded as P.W.1 who has categorically supported about the complicity of the accused/revisionists and has reiterated the prosecution case as mentioned in the first information report.

(2.) The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the statement of the complainant was recorded on 9.11.2011 and an application on the same day was moved by the complainant that prima facie offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is also made out against the revisionists hence they may also be prosecuted under Section 307 I.P.C. The Court below has allowed the said application by the impugned order dated 13.12.2011.

(3.) Further submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that medical report is not corroborating with the prosecution case as no such incident has ever taken place as the witnesses have stated that no such incident had taken place and the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet on the basis of the injury report. No offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists. The fire-arm inquiry has been fabricated could not have been received as alleged by the prosecution. The injury is on non-vital part and according to doctor's opinion injuries are simple in nature. The Court below has passed the order in the absence of any additional evidence hence the order passed by the Court below is liable to be quashed.