RAM KISHORE Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Present revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to set aside the order dated 27.05.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Kaushambi passed in Session Trial No.205 of 2016 (State Vs. Anup Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.139 of 2016, under Sections 302, 201, 404 I.P.C., Police Station Mahewaghat, District Kaushambi, whereby application 14 Kha under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist for summoning the opposite party nos.2 and 3 was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the instant criminal revision has been preferred.

(3.) The brief facts leading to this revision are that the first information report was lodged by the complainant/revisionist, Ram Kishor on 13.05.2016 with the allegation that his son, namely, Sandeep Kumar @ Sanjeev, who was residing with Anup Kumar and was also working with him in Rajapur. It was further alleged that on 25.04.2016 Anoop Kumar with the intention to cause death came to the village with Sandeep and Sandeep after taking Rs.15,000/- in cash and pass book from the house and after withdrawing Rs.25,000/- from the bank returned to the house and informed that he is going with Anoop Kumar as he is having an important work. It was also alleged that Anoop Kumar hatched a conspiracy involving his father, Shivcharan Lal and brother, Aniruddh along with two hired miscreants and murdered the son of the complainant. The complainant got information from the newspaper on 26.04.2016 about the death of his son, Sandeep @ Sanjeev and the deceased was recognized by his cloths. The police after investigation submitted the charge-sheet against Anoop Kumar only. The trial of this case was proceeded. The prosecution has examined PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and the witnesses were cross-examined by the counsel for the accused Anoop Kumar. After the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was given and after hearing the application, the trial court rejected the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.