CHANDRA BHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. C. Jain, J. The applicants Chandra Bhan Singh, Kailash Singh, and Budhai Singh by an order dated 15-5-1994 passed by Sri Kertar Singh XII Addl. Ses sions Judge, Moradabad in ST No. 903 of 1991 (State v. Mukesh alias Kaluwa) have been summoned in exercise of powers under Section 319 Crpc to face trial under Section 307/304 IPC in ST 903-Aof 1991.

(2.) THE facts are few. THE applicants were named in an FIR lodged on 25-12-1989 at 2. 30 p. m. at P. S. Navgava Sadat, District Moradabad with regard to an oc currence which took place on that day at 12. 30 p. m. the life of one Bhanu was cut short in the said incident. THE FIR was made by Veer Bhan. Fires had also been allegedly shot by them on complainant Veer Bhan and Dinesh who had escaped unhurt. However, one Mukesh alias Kaluwa figured during the course of inves tigation and he was put at trial in ST No. 903 of 1991. He was acquitted by the judg ment dated 15-12-1994 in question but the Court took cognizance against the present applicants in exercise of powers under Section 319 Crpc on the ground that they had been named in the FIR and evidence had come to be there against them before the Court in the testimony of complainant, PW 1 Veer Bhan and PW 2 Dinesh. THE evidence was to the effect that the shot opened by the applicant Chandra Bhan had killed Bhanu whereas the remaining two applicants had opened fire on the complainant Veer Bhan and Dinesh who had, however escaped unhurt.

(3.) IT is settled law that the term evidence does not mean evidence com plete by cross-examination. The Court can take action on uncross-examined evidence while exercising power under Section 319 Crpc. Indeed, the final report submitted by the police against the applicants could not be placed on a higher pedestal adverse ly affecting the powers of the Court under Section 319 Crpc which it can exercise on the basis of evidence coming before it.