SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This criminal revision is directed against order dated 22.3.2012 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.). Etawah, in State v. Vimlesh and others, Special Trial No. 204 of 2008, under Section 364A, I.P.C., P.S. Bharthana, District Etawah, whereby the revisionist Sanjeev Kumar son of Jagdish Chandra was summoned under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for lacing trial in respect of the offence under Section 364A, I.P.C.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that initially the application was allowed vide order dated 4.5.2005 and the revisionist was summoned under Section 319. Cr.P.C., but order dated 4.5.2005 was set aside by this Court vide order dated 6.5-2009 passed in criminal misc. application No. 9938 of" 2009 with a direction to the trial court to decide the application afresh after examination and cross-examination of all the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel contends that the abductee Vimal Kumar @ Kallu. in cross-examination, has specifically stated that he was kidnapped/abducted by Sanjeev Kumar son of Ram Das and Anil Kumar, whereas another abductee Rajesh (P.W. 2) simply named Sanjeev, but did not disclose his father's name. The contention is that from the statement of Vimal Kumar @ Kallu, the involvement of the revisionist is completely ruled out.

(3.) The next contention is that a person summoned under Section 319, Cr.P.C., has to be jointly tried with the persons, who are already accused in the case, but in the instant case, learned trial court has separated the case of the revisionist and decided the case of other co-accused whereby all other accused, except Anil Kumar, have been acquitted and Anil Kumar has been convicted for the offence under Section 364A, I.P.C.