DILSHAD Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as AGA and perused the record.

(2.) The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 19.7.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2 in Sessions Trial No.128 of 2002, whereby while exercising the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the learned Additional Sessions Judge has summoned the revisionist to face trial under Section 302 of I.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the impugned order by submitting that the revisionist was neither named in the F.I.R. nor his name came to light during the investigation. The complainant, while stating before the investigating officer, categorically stated that injury was caused to him by Raju (the accused named in the F.I.R.) and not by the revisionist. The other injured Ram Babu@Babuji has also stated that injury was caused to him by Raju. Nureso, Raju has confessed his guilt before the investigating officer and on his pointing out a country made pistol and cartridges were recovered by the police. It has further been contended that during the course of trial, the informant(opposite party No.2 in the instant revision) took a 'U' turn and changed the entire story including the name of the accused by stating that police has wrongly named accused Raju. In fact, Dilshad and Sanju had caused injuries to Babbuji @ Ram Babu. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that due to collusion with the accused Raju, who is the real culprit, the name of the revisionist has come to light, that too, for the first time during the trial in the testimony of informant, which is not reliable.