RAJU @ RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 988 of 2012 ( State Versus Raju @ Raj Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 225 of 2012, under Sections 307 and 452 I.P.C., P.S. Masoorie, district Ghaziabad, whereby the discharge application moved by the revisionist has been rejected.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order is illegal because no offence under section 452 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist. Learned counsel has submitted that for establishing an offence under Section 307 I.P.C., there must be some motive while in the present case there is no motive as such no case under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite party no. 2 who is the first informant, has stated before the I.O. that he had sustained two injuries but in the medical report only one injury has been mentioned which shows that no occurrence took place as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next contended that in the F.I.R. the name of one Yashpal is mentioned as eye witness but his statement has neither been recorded by the I.O. nor his name as a witness has been mentioned in the chargesheet therefore the observations made by the court below while passing the impugned order are incorrect, baseless and unsustainable in the eyes of law.