PURUSHOTTAM Vs. STATE OF U P & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist has assailed the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Bahraich in pending Session Trial No.174 of 2005, whereby the application of the revisionist for summoning the additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

(2.) I have heard Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 to 4 as well as learned A.G.A.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that although the opposite parties no.2 to 4 were not named in the First Information Report but during trial, their names have come into light and the witnesses examined during the trial have clearly named that they were also present on the spot and played an active role in the commission of crime. Learned counsel has referred to the statement of P.W-2 Pankaj Kumar Tiwari who in his examination-in-Chief has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence when he reached near the place of occurrence, he saw that the opposite parties no.2 to 4 were also present in the jeep which was being given by the main accused namely Devendra @ Dablu Pathak. Another witness of the prosecution Ashok Kumar Tewari examined as P.W-3 has stated in his examination-in-Chief that he is the next door neighbour of the deceased and on 30.05.2004 at about 6.00 P.M., the accused Dablu Pathak and Sukhram forcibly took away Purushotam and Babu Ram Tewari. Soon thereafter he heard the noise of firing upon which he reached near the house of Dablu Pathak, he saw that Ram Sahare, Dharm Raj, Bablu Lal, Buchchai and Muneer Ahmad were catching hold the legs of Babu Ram Tewari while Dwarika Prasad and Dablu Pathak were having guns.