RAJ BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Sessions Trial No. 159 of 94 State Vs. Arimardan Singh under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat summoned the revisionist under Sec. 319(1) Criminal Procedure Code stating that from the statement of PW-1 Subedar Singh it appears that the revisionist was also involved along with the accused in the crime. Aggrieved by this order the revisionist has come to this Court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have looked into the material placed on record. The revision is being disposed of finally as agreed upon by the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) The revisionist was named in the F.I.R. The role assigned to him was of exhortation. The police did not submit any charge-sheet against him. It appears that in the statement recorded under Sec. 161 Criminal Procedure Code it was not given out that upon the exhortation by the revisionist Arimardan Singh fired the fatal shot. However, we are not concerned with the statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr. P.C. at this stage, it has to be seen as to whether from the evidence recorded in the case, the trial court was properly of the opinion that it appeared from the evidence that the revisionist was also involved in the offence in question.