MAMTA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State. By this revision, the revisionists have challenged the order dated 06.07.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ex Cadre) II, Auraiya in S.T. No.7 of 2011, whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionists have been summoned to face trial, under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (X) of S.C & S.T. Act.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that a First Information Report was lodged by the opposite party no.2 (Kumari Bebi) against Shiloo (the revisionist no.2), Arun, Brijesh Awasthi and Mamta (the revisionist no.1) for offences punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (X) of S.C. and S.T. Act. On the basis of the said First Information Report, investigation was carried out and a charge sheet was laid only against Arun and Brijesh Awasthi, whereas final report was submitted with respect to Shiloo (the revisionist no.2) and Mamta (the revisionist no.1). During the course of trial, statement of Bebi (the opposite party no.2 herein) was recorded as P.W.1. Bebi was also injured in the incident. In her statement, on oath, she disclosed the complicity of the revisionists.

(3.) CHALLENGING the order passed by the court below, learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the court below has not recorded any satisfaction that the evidence led before it was reasonably sufficient to record conviction. It has further been contended that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be ordinarily exercised and should be used sparingly. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah and others v. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2011) 13 SCC 316. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that since the complicity of the revisionists were disclosed from the initial stages itself and their complicity has been re-affirmed by the testimony of Bebi (P.W.1), who is also an injured witness, it should be inferred that the evidence on record was sufficient, so as to reasonably lead to conviction of the persons sought to be added, if the testimony remains unrebutted. Having considered the rival submissions, since the complicity of the revisionists was disclosed from the initial stage itself, I am of the view that the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., on the statement of P.W.1 (Bebi) who was an injured witness and had supported the version taken in the First Information Report, cannot be faulted. This view also draws support from the judgment of the Apex Court in Suman v. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2010) 1 SCC 250 where, in paragraph no.27 of the judgment, the Apex Court observed as under:-