KALICHARAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Udai Karan Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, Advocate for revisionists, has submitted arguments, which are in two folds. Firstly, that summoning of revisionists (three in numbers), under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C., is contrary to judgment passed by Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Brijendra Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706, that, Trial Court has to make out an opinion to see whether much stronger evidence than mere possibility of their (applicants) complicity has come on record. However, there is no satisfaction of this nature in the impugned order. Relevant para 15 of the judgment in Brijendra Singh (supra), is quoted hereinafter:

(2.) Second fold of the argument of learned Senior Advocate is that, during pendency to challenge to order passed under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. trial has been concluded against originally charge sheeted accused, wherein Trial Court vide judgment and order dtd. 7/9/2022 has acquitted said accused from the offence under Sec. 302 IPC, therefore, there would be no justification that present revisionists may go through the same procedure wherein same evidence has to be led again and most likely outcome of trial will be same.

(3.) The above submissions are vehemently opposed by Sri Sushil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2. He submitted that Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence of eye witnesses, i.e., PWs 1, 2 and 3 that all the three revisionists have also assaulted deceased, who not only received multiple injuries but died due to strangulation and said witnesses had witnessed the incident and further that in a case where a person is summoned under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. he has to face de novo trial, therefore, there will be no consequence of acquittal of the charge sheeted accused for the same offence after the trial.