BEGA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition under Sec. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 11.2.2005 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 19/2002, whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section'319 of the Code for arraigning non-petitioner No. 2 Ashu Ram as an accused -on the basis of evidence available on record, who not being the accused, has committed the offence along with the other co-accused facing trial. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the p ies. Perused the order impugned as also challan papers and statements of PW-3 Begaram and PW-4 Sagar who are injured eye witnesses.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non- petitioner No. 2 Ashu Ram has been named as main accused along with other co- accused in the case right from first information. report which was promptly lodged on 25.6.2002. In the first information report, a specific role has been assigned to the non-petitioner No. 2 that he was armed with Barchhi and inflicted injury to deceased Mohan Ram. There is also allegation in the first information report that thereafter he fired as many as four gunshot and ran away with other co-accused persons. Learned counsel submits that in the instant case, as many as 13 witnesses, who witnessed the occurrence, have stated in their statements under Sec. 161 of the Code that it was non-petitioner No. 2 Ashu Ram who came along with other co-accused armed with Barchhi and inflicted a blow from the handle side of the Barchhi to deceased Mohanram. Two eye witnesses examined by the trial Court namely PW-3 Begaram and PW-4 Sagar made similar statement on oath which was subjected to cross-examination but both the witnesses withstood the cross-examination and therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner there is evidence that the non-petitioner No. 2, not being the accused in the case has committed the offence of murder apart from the other offences, may be tried together with the accused facing trial.