AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Considering the nature of the order that is being passed and since the opposite party No.2 has not yet been made an accused, I do not consider it necessary to issue notice to the opposite party No.2. Learned A.G.A. also does not pray for time to file counter-affidavit, as the necessary material is already on record by means of affidavit.

(2.) BY this revision, challenge is to an order dated 19.06.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Etah in Session Trial No. 54 of 2007, whereby the application No. 74A, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., to add Ram Asre as an accused to face trial under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C., has been rejected.

(3.) THE police conducted investigation and laid charge-sheet against Balram, Ram Vilash and Mohabbat Singh, whereas Ram Saran and Ram Asre were let off. On the basis of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court where it was registered as Session Trial No. 54 of 2007. During the course of trial, statements of PW.1 (Amar Singh-informant), PW.2 (Pushpa Devi), PW.3 (Narendra Singh) were recorded. In the statements of PW.1 and PW.2, the complicity of Ram Asre and Ram Saran were disclosed. These witnesses were also subjected to cross-examination. On the strength of the statements of PW.1 and PW.2, an application was given to add Ram Asre as an additional accused, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. This application was rejected by the court below, against which the present revision has been filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the court below while rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. did not properly consider the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Pal Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another reported in (2009) 4 SCC 423 and it also committed error by taking into consideration the material in the case diary, when by 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, only the evidence adduced before the Court is to be considered, while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the term "evidence" as it appears in sub-Section (1) of Section 319 Cr.P.C., is the evidence tendered during trial, therefore, material in the case diary to the effect that Ram Asre was busy as a Polling Agent, was not relevant. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1998) 7 SCC 149. It was further contended that the prosecution case against Ram Asre was consistent from the very begining , therefore, merely because the police did not lay charge-sheet against him, it could not be said that there was no sufficient evidence against him. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of? Suman v. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2010) 1 SCC 250.