GYANENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The present revision has been filed against the order dated 26.7.2004, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 3, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 802 of 2001, State v. Rakesh Singh and others.

(2.) THE brief facts, giving rise to the present revision, are that revisionist Gyanendra Singh lodged the report (Annexure-2) against Rakesh Singh, Kalika Singh, Raj Karan Singh and Ram Singh who reached the place of occurrence with the fire arm and injured Shyam Singh and Ram Singh. THE case was investigated and Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet only against two accused leaving Kalika Singh and Raj Karan Singh. THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions and during the course of trial two witnesses namely Gyanendra Singh complainant was examined as P.W. 1 and Shyam Singh was examined as P.W. 2. After their examination the prosecution moved an application for summoning Kalika Singh and Raj Karan Singh as accused to stand trial together with the accused already facing trial, requesting the Court to invoke the provisions of Section 319, Cr. P.C. THE trial court dismissed the said application by the impugned order.

(3.) THE trial Judge has relied upon judgments of Apex Court in Smt. Rukhasana Khatoon v. Sakhawat Hussain, 2002 (1) ACR 419 (SC) : 2002 (44) ACC 411, quoted out few lines from the head note and never cared to read the law laid down and apply the same. THE trial Judge again relied upon 1999 (38) ACC 123 (in the order wrongly types as 193) and left it by simply quoting few lines from the head note. Both the judgment quoted above show that the trial court was fully empowered to summon the accused after invoking the provisions of Section 319, Cr. P.C. In cases where accused has been named in the F.I.R. but during investigation no charge-sheet was filed against him, such person can be summoned under Section 319, Cr. P.C. by the Court if sufficient evidence existed against him. THE trial Judge no doubt cited the said authority but hardly read or cared for applying the law laid down therein. THE Court had to consider the evidence adduced before it and not the defence of the person who has yet not appeared before the Court.