BABLI SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 23.10.2013 whereby an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the First Informant which sought the summoning of the additional accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 6 had been rejected. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. The entire record has been perused including the impugned order.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the perusal of the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses shall reveal that the respondents were present at the place where the deceased was found lying and where he eventually died. Further submission is that there is evidence to the effect that the deceased while dying uttered the words 'Munnu Pradhan Dhokha' which according to the Counsel should be taken as an incriminating circumstance against respondent No. 6. Though it has been fairly conceded by the Counsel for the revisionist that the gross contradictions between the version given in the F.I.R. and the version which has been given in the Trial Court by the prosecution witnesses is so glaring that the prospect of conviction after trial would be very bleak in case the accused respondents are summoned by the Trial Court as the additional accused to face the trial. But the contention of the Counsel is that prima facie there is material available on record which should justify at least the summoning of the accused under section 319 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. in rebuttal has submitted that the version given in the Trial Court by the witnesses is not only repugnant to the version given in the F.I.R. but is also irreconcilable with the same. At the first instance the case was shown to be a case of a pure accident taking place on the road as a result of negligent driving of only one accused Nirmal Singh but later on not only the place of occurrence has been changed and shifted but an entirely new story alleging the homicidal death and that too in a house has been alleged. The number of the persons whose complicity is alleged at the stage of the trial has also swelled up from one to eight. The diagonal contradiction in the versions given at different stages makes the evidence wholly unworthy of reliance on the basis of which the additional respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have been sought to be summoned. According to A.G.A. there was no justification for the Court to allow the application and the same has been rightly rejected.