MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the revisionist is present.

(2.) This revision challenges the validity of the impugned order dated 23.2.2008 passed by learned ADJ, Court No. 2, Bijnor in S.T. No. 703 of 2007 State of U.P. v. Jai Bhagwan and others, whereby the Court framed charges against all the three accused under Section 307, 323, 324, 452, 427, 386 and 506 IPC.

(3.) I have gone through the record and feel that the counsel for revisionist is right in his contention that so far as Section 307 IPC is concerned it is not borne out from material produced by the prosecution. There are some crucial relevant statements given by the injured first informant Smt. Rajnees Sharma and other witness namely Sanjeev Kumar, Indrapal and Sanjay Tyagi which shall be germane to adjudicate upon the point in question. From the perusal of the first informant's statement given to the I.O. it is very clear that accused Manoj who was allegedly armed with country made pistol, never fired any shot at her. According to the statements of all other witnesses he did not use his fire arm against any body at all. It is stated that after the incident was over, this accused fired in the air without aiming any body. It was obviously an attempt to scare away the crowd and make his escape good. It also transpires from the statements that when the three accused were trying to flee away the first informant tried to hold and stop them. The first informant has stated that while she tried to hold back the accused, all the three accused started beating her with their fists and legs. Other witnesses Sanjeev Kumar, Sudarshan, Indrapal and Sanjay Tayagi, whose statements have also been annexed in the revision, also did not allege any act of firing made on the first informant or any body else even after the resistance was offered by the first informant.