SUDHIR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) An F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the victim against the revisionists and others stating that on 28.2.2013 the victim and her brother had gone to the Bank for some work. At 11.30 a.m. when the brother of the victim came out of the bank, his sister Laxmi was missing. The brother of the victim told that Sudhir, Shivam and Nirmal, who were standing outside the Bank, had called her out of the Bank and shopkeepers told that three boys had taken away the girl. Hence, the F.I.R. was lodged.

(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the revisionists that the revisionists were not charge sheeted and the revisionists were not named by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It has further been argued that the matter of framing charge and summoning an accused persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. rests on different footing. Inasmuch as while proceeding to frame charge, there must be prima facie evidence whereas in order to summon a person under Section 319, some more clinching evidence is needed so that the court may believe that the accused can be convicted.