RAVINDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

(2.) THE two applicants namely Ravindra Yadav and Ashok Yadav have been summoned under Section 319, Cr. P.C. by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Gorakhpur in S.T. No. 219/2007, State v. Shailesh Yadav, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 326, I.P.C. and 3/5 Explosive Substances Act. THE basis of summoning the applicants under Section 319, Cr. P.C. is the recorded statement of P.W. 1 Markandey Singh, who is the father of the injured and the statement of Sanjay Singh, who himself is the injured in the incident. In their statements both the aforesaid witnesses have deposed that the applicant No. 1 Ravindra Yadav alongwith Brijesh Yadav and others had earlier committed the murder of the son of the informant, regarding which, sessions trial is progressing. In the said Sessions trial, Sanjay Singh injured of the present case had given statements against the accused persons. Motivated by the said deposition in the Sessions trial, on 23.3.2006 at 6 p.m., Ravindra Yadav applicant accused in the present case, instigated other accused persons Ashok, Brajesh Yadav and Manoj Tiwari to murder Sanjay. As a result of assault Sanjay sustained injuries in the instant case. It is further stated by the aforesaid two witnesses that on the instigation of Ravindra Yadav two other accused-Brijesh Yadav and Manoj Tiwari had hurled bombs on the injured and Ashok Yadav had shot at the injured. On the basis of aforesaid statements, the trial Judge was of the opinion that there are sufficient ground to summon Ravindra Yadav and Ashok Yadav as an accused to stand trial alongwith already trying accused.

(3.) THE facts in the present case are to the contrary. In this case, the trial Judge after examining of two witnesses including the injured was satisfied that there is sufficient reason to summon the two applicants as accused. This view of the trial Judge looking into the facts of the present case cannot be said to be an arbitrary exercise of power nor it can be said that if the evidence of two witnesses including the injured if taken to be correct no conviction is possible. Evidence of injured witness, whose presence at the spot is beyond doubt is by itself sufficient to convict the applicants if believed. THE impugned order is based on admissible evidences, which is sufficient, to frame the charges against the applicants and if the trial Judge on such evidences was of the opinion that there are sufficient ground to summon the two applicants as accused, there is nothing wrong and illegal in it. THE discretionary power of the trial Judge should not be interfered with by this Court lightly, otherwise the very purpose of the statute will suffer. Section 319, Cr. P.C. is incorporated in the statute book to do complete justice and it is not an ornamental power.