Allahabad High Court
Gulveer Singh And 6 Others vs State Of U.P Through Chief Secretary ... on 25 April, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 93 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5454 of 2022 Revisionist :- Gulveer Singh And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Chief Secretary (Home) U.P And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Kumar,Brij Raj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
01. Heard Sri Brij Raj, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
02. By means of this criminal revision, the order dated 27.10.2021 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court no.16, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No.152/2018 (Fauran Singh vs. State of U.P. and another) has been challenged.
03. The relevant facts are as below:-
1. The first informant Phauran Singh lodged an F.I.R. case crime no.153 A/06, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 34 I.P.C. with the allegations that ten persons named therein who included the instant revisionist no.1 to 7 attacked and murdered his two sons Buddhu alais Dharmveer and Subhas.
2. The matter was investigated upon and the I.O. closed the case by filing final report concluding there that one Rekha Devi was molested by the accused persons, therefore, her family and other locals gathered there and physically assaulted them causing them injuries and names of the revisionist accused persons as the assailants have been wrongly mentioned in the F.I.R.. It may be noted that no chargesheet was filed against anybody.
03. The first informant presented a protest application which was disposed of by order dated 17.12.2011 by C.J.M., Aligarh rejecting the F.R. and taking cognizance against Gulveer Singh and others and summoning them at the same time.
04. This order dated 17.12.2011 was challenged in Criminal Revision no.38 of 2012 filed by Gulveer Singh and others and the same was allowed by order dated 23.07.2014, with a direction to the concerned court that matter shall be decided afresh.
05. This order was challenged by the first informant Fauran Singh before the High Court by filing Criminal Revision No.2711 of 2014 and the said criminal revision was decided on 22.09.2014 with the direction to the court below to take a fresh look into the matter and to draw his own inference on the basis of material on record, unfettered with finding/inference recorded by the revisional court earlier i.e. in order dated 23.07.2014, consequently the matter was heard and decided again by the C.J.M. Aligarh who dismissed the protest application and accepted the final report by order dated 16.02.2018.
06. Against the aforesaid order accepting the final report, the first informant again went into Criminal Revision No.152 of 2018 which was decided by order dated 27.10.2021, the operative portion of the impugned order is as below:
"???????????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ??????-152/2018 ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????? ???? ??????-16.02.2018 ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?????????? ?? ???? ??? ????????????/???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????????? ?????"
06. To the query raised by this Court as regard the maintainability of the present revision it has been pointed out that earlier this order was challenged by filing writ petition under Article 227 No.2550 of 2022 whereby writ petition was dismissed by order dated 08.07.2022 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by virtue of provisions of Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. Now it is contended on behalf of the revisionists that they have no option but to file this criminal revision in the wake of the above order dated 08.07.2022.
07. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that there is absolutely no cogent evidence against them and that the I.O., finding no evidence against them filed the final report and the same was accepted as well. In case the revisional court found any evidence against them, it could have straight away passed a final order instead of passing an order directing the learned Magistrate for taking fresh look in the matter. It has further been contended that in fact there is nothing on record for taking cognizance against them and that revisional court should not, in such circumstance ordinarily interference with the trial court orders.
08. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. pointed out that in this case two persons were allegedly killed/murdered by the instant revisionists. They have been clearly named in the F.I.R.. Even if during the course of investigation it was found that the instant revisionists were not individually responsible for the murder of two persons and that it was members of the crowd/unlawful assembly, who in prosecution of their common object killed two persons, it was responsibility of the investigating officer to investigate the matter in diligent manner and to collect the evidence to the effect that there existed an unlawful assembly which resorted to violence resulting in killing of two persons, further it was bounden duty of the investigative agency to collect evidence with regard to facts whether the instant revisionists or the persons named in the F.I.R. were present on the spot as members thereof. The Investigating Officer is not allowed to say that two persons were, though found dead on the spot who had suffered a number of ante mortem injuries were killed by a crowd and therefore, no one is responsible for the murder. This type of investigation is not worthy of acceptance to say the least.
09 I went through the impugned order. The revisional court has observed certain factual aspects of this matter of the double murder. There were two eye witnesses who supported the version of the F.I.R.. It was also observed by the revisional court that blood spots were found on the place of occurrence and there was shown a good reason for delayed filing of the F.I.R.. In my view, the prosecution case cannot entirely depend on the defence version. The I.O. is under legal obligation to go deeper into the matter and to dig out the evidence demonstrating that who were the persons responsible for the incident. This is not to say that in this case the instant revisionists were involved but to say that I.O. has to find out who were the persons responsible for this double murder. It may fruitfully be noticed that the investigating officer has every power to further investigate the matter if deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and that Magistrate may think in this direction, in case exigencies of the case so demand.
10.In this view of the mater, I do not find any illegality, impropriety and irregularity in the impugned order so as to justify interference by this Court in exercise of this revisional jurisdiction.
11. This criminal revision is, therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2023 Asha