FARMAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Farman for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.8.2014 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Hapur, Ghaziabad in S.T. No. 302 of 2011 in Case Crime No. 285 of 2014 under sections 323, 324, 308, 504 and 506 IPC P.S. Simbhawali, District Hapur, Ghaziabad. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the applicant has fairly conceded that during the course of statements which have been given in the trial by the prosecution witnesses, all the four of them have categorically implicated the applicant and have assigned the overt act of using lathi and thereby assaulting the victim. But the submission of the Counsel is that during the investigation the I.O. did not submit charge-sheet against the applicant because the applicant according to the finding of the investigation, was found to be not present on the spot. Instead he was found in his office where he works. The submission is that because the Investigating Officer had not submitted the charge-sheet against applicant therefore, summoning of the applicant under section 319 Cr.P.C. is bad in the eyes of law and the Court should not have relied or acted upon the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses in the Court and should have more appropriately relied upon the favourable findings of the I.O.

(3.) Learned AGA has opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that the powers of the Trial Court to act under section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be restricted by the findings of the I.O. and the Trial Court is not bound to agree with the inference drawn by him in all cases. The submission is that the evidence with regard to the applicant which has been produced in the course of trial is overwhelming and it was very much within the power of the Court to summon the applicant if it was satisfied about his complicity in the crime, and if in its judicial estimate it was satisfied that the evidence produced makes it desirable to summon him to face trial along with the co-accused.