VIJAY PRAKASH @ JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the respondent complainant. Perused the impugned order.

(2.) These two revisions are directed against an order dated 12.1.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No. 7/2016 whereby, the application submitted by the respondent complainant under Section 193 Cr.P.C., 1973 was accepted and the petitioners and Vijay Prakash @ Jagdish and Mukeen Khan @ Mukesh alongwith Razak @ Raju and Abdul were directed to be summoned as additional accused to face trial with the charge sheeted accused Mahesh and Kanhaiya Lal.

(3.) Sarva Shri Suresh Kumbhat, Sheetal Kumbhat and Vishal Saraswat, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urge that the independent witnesses Mithudas and Rakesh, the injured witnesses Ravi and Maina, the sister of the deceased Mahendra, who was the first person to reach the place of the occurrence, did not name the petitioners as the assailants. The Investigating Officer assigned detailed and justified reasons for leaving out the names of the petitioners from the array of the accused. As per the admitted case set out in the statement of eyewitness Maina and the injured witness Ravi, only the two charge sheeted accused Karan and Mahesh assaulted the deceased by sharp weapons. Even in the exaggerated statements of the witnesses Bhundi Devi and the witness Prem, it is an admitted position that the other accused were not armed with any weapon whatsoever. They further urge that as per the post mortem report of the deceased Mahendra, he was having sharp weapon injuries on his person all of which are assigned to the charge-sheeted co-accused and as such, apparently, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. They further urge that after submission of the charge-sheet, the complainant moved an application before the trial court under Section 190 Cr.P.C., 1973 with the very same prayer. The Magistrate rejected the said application by order dated 16.10.2015 which was not challenged any further and hence, has become final. They thus crave acceptance of the revisions and implored the Court to set aside the impugned order.