SONI @ SNEHLATA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.

(2.) IT is submitted that once the Investigating Officer after being apprised that the present revisionists had no role whatsoever in the commission of the alleged offence, dropped them at the stage of investigation, there was no justifiable reason for the court below to have summoned them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the informant neither in the FIR nor in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. assigned any role to the revisionists and that it was only for the first time in his substantive evidence that he assigned a role vis -a -vis the present revisionists. He also contends that the court below has only relied upon the testimony of P.W. -1 and did not take into consideration the evidence of P.W. -2. He finally relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2014 3 SCC 92 to contend that in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the court below as contemplated by the Apex Court, which should be more than that of framing of charge, but short of conviction of guilt, the impugned order stands vitiated.

(3.) THE Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh , after examining the previous decisions, culled out the following proposition of law in so far relevant for the present case: -