NAGULAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under section 397 r/w section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against order passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Session Trial No.297/2013 dated 24.09.2014.

(2.) Brief facts for disposal of this revision are that complainant Chhotelal lodged a report in Police Station Mahakal against Ranjeet, Manoj and present applicant Nagulal stating therein that on 24.10.2012, he went to see Dashahra celebrations near Kalidas Garden at about 09:30 pm. After ceremony, he along with prosecution witness Suresh Singh, Imran and Kamal started for their home on motorcycle. At that moment, Manoj, Ranjeet and present applicant Nagulal came there and caught hold of him from behind and present applicant inflicted knife injury on his stomach and to save himself from the knife, he bent at one side due to which the knife stuck at his thigh and he sustained grievous injury. After investigation, the charge - sheet was filed only against two other accused Manoj and Ranjeet and after recording statements of many other witnesses did not file any charge -sheet against the present applicant holding that he was not present during the alleged incident. However, in the Court's statement, witnesses Chhotelal himself, Suresh Singh, Imran and Vijay started the contention of the complainant and stated the story of prosecution as stated in the FIR that during the incident, accused Manoj and Ranjeet Mali caught hold of him from behind while the present applicant inflicted knife injury on him. After taking evidence of these witnesses into consideration, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application filed by the prosecution under section 319 Cr.P.C. and ordered that the present applicant be summoned as an accused in the case.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order, this revision is filed on the ground that before summoning the present applicant as an accused, he was not given any opportunity to explain his case. Investigation Officer P.W.9 also stated that after investigation, presence of this witness was not found on the spot and, therefore, no charge -sheet was filed against him. It was also stated that before filing of charge -sheet, permission from the Superintendent of Police and all other officers were also obtained, they all agreed that no case was made against the present applicant. It is also one of the ground that the Court had summoned the present applicant as an accused on the basis of four prosecution witnesses. However, other witnesses Subhash, Dhansingh, Rajesh, Babulal, Amit, Banshi and Preemnarayan etc. were not examined and also one important witness Vijay was also not examined. Going through the papers filed with charge -sheet only the statement of prosecution witness Vijay is important which was recorded on 25.10.2012. The statement of other witnesses were recorded in the month of April, 2013 which was almost after six months of the incident and cannot be considered at this stage. However, in the statement of Vijay, he did not mention presence of Nagulal and stated that accused Ranjeet Mali inflicted knife injury on Chhotelal. However, there are other discrepancies in the police statement of the witness which can only be clarified after recording his evidence of other witnesses. At this stage, it cannot be said that the averments in the FIR which is supported by statements of other witnesses are false.