MOHD ZAHEER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner-accused Mohd. Zaheer aggrieved from order dtd. 21/11/2023 in Sessions Case No.58/2018 in a matter arising out of FIR No.97/2018 P.S. Purani Tonk, Tonk passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, whereby on an application of respondent No.2 complainant cognizance under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. was taken against the petitioner-accused.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner while relying upon grounds of revision petition submits that after registration of FIR by complainant, police has investigated the matter and after investigation, the role and involvement of Shamsher and Jahangir were found and police has filed charge-sheet against them. He further submits that due to animosity the complainant has named several persons, but without any overt act of any of them. The police has not only investigated the matter in details, but also recorded the statement of independent witnesses and with a cogent reason has not filed charge-sheet against present petitioner or any other person. He also submitted that after framing the charge, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and out of these 6 witnesses, injured Jabbaar was examined as PW-1 and he turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. He further submitted that another injured Sajid Ali was examined as PW-4 and he has not corroborated the evidence of PW-2 and denied involvement of present petitioner. He specifically referred the statement of PW-4 and submitted that he denied even the presence of present petitioner, who went to offer Namaz (prayer). He also submitted that the Trial Court only on basis of statement of PW-2 Ibrahim has taken cognizance against the present petitioner-accused, and has not even ensured any verification from any independent source. He further submitted that when two out of three injured have not supported the case of prosecution then an order of cognizance cannot be passed under Sec. 319 of Cr.P.C. At last, he submitted that the Trial Court has committed serious error while allowing the application under Sec. 319 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.