HATTI RAM Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, challenge is made to the orders dated 17/04/2009 and 01/05/2009 passed by the trial court and revisional court, respectively.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the FIR, thorough investigation was conducted by the police. The charge-sheet was not filed against the petitioner after considering the evidence. The court did not take cognisance by invoking Section 190 Cr.P.C. An application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was however filed after completion of evidence from prosecution side. The aforesaid application was allowed by taking cognisance against the petitioner. It was in ignorance of the contradictions in the evidence in regard to the role of the present petitioner. Few eye-witnesses did not name the petitioner and at the same time, others did not allege injury by the petitioner using an Axe. The cognisance can be taken by invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. when material exists, which can lead to conviction. The courts below have failed to consider this aspect while passing the impugned-orders. Both the orders thus deserve to be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the petition. It is submitted that after considering the evidence, cognisance of the offence has been taken against the petitioner. The injured has specifically named the petitioner for causing injury. In view of above, the impugned-orders may not be interfered with.