MANORANJAN PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision has been directed against the order dtd. 10/2/2023 which was signed on 21/2/2023 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi in S.T. Case No.569 of 2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner, who is appearing In Person before this Court has submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged against four named accused and two unknown persons. Though all the six accused persons have been assigned the role in committing the alleged offence in furtherance of common intention, yet some of the accused have been attributed specific role. The Investigating Officer after concluding the investigation filed charge-sheet only against the three accused, who were named in the F.I.R. and exonerated one named accused and two other accused who were not named in the F.I.R. After filing of the charge-sheet before the court concerned, the cognizance was also taken for the very offence under which the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial to the court of Sessions. The court of Sessions also framed the charge and trial was commenced. The informant (the petitioner in this case) was examined before the learned trial court as P.W.-1. The informant in his statement thoroughly corroborated the contents of the F.I.R. and also attributed the specific role to some of the accused and general and omnibus role to other accused. All the six accused have been attributed role in committing the alleged offence but the learned trial court without taking into consideration the testimony of the informant, who was also the injured eye-witness whose testimony holds much significance has rejected the application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that only touchstone to summon the accused is whether the case for trial is found against the accused who have been attributed role in commission of the offence during trial even at the stage of examination-in-chief. The medical evidence also corroborates the statement of informant, who is injured eye- witness. The petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon the following case laws :

(3.) Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the petitioner who is appearing In Person before this Court and contended that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court bears no infirmity and needs no interference as the same has been passed in view of appreciation of the testimony of the witness.