Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. After lodgement of the FIR, investigation proceeded and the Investigating Officer on 24.05.2014 recorded the statement of the first informant, Dinesh Kumar Singh under section 161 C.P.C. in which he reiterated the version of the FIR.

SPECIFIC CASE OF THE REVISIONISTS

5. On the next date of incident i.e. 25th May, 2014 statements of witnesses, namely, Satish Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar and Mehak Singh were recorded by the Investigating Officer under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. wherein they stated that the revisionists namely, Pradhan Krishnapal and Vikash were in the village on the date of incident and they have been falsely implicated in the murder of the deceased Neeraj. As such, the plea of alibi of the revisionists surfaced immediately after the incident. On 29.05.2014, the statement of sister of the deceased Smt. Rekha and one Harendra, who were mentioned as witnesses of the FIR, were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which they did not support the version as unfolded in the FIR and statement of the first informant/opposite party no.2 rather stated that one Praveern alias Billu and one Ankit were the ones who had shot the deceased and did not name the revisionists as one of the perpetrators in the incident. Thereafter the name of the revisionists was dropped/exonerated from the investigation and one Ankit alias Guddu was added as an accused in crime in question. However, the aforesaid witnesses namely Smt. Rekha and Harendra were pressurized by the first informant and on 20.6.2014, they have filed their affidavits supporting the version of the FIR and denied their earlier statements which were recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. Two more affidavits of the first informant Dinesh Kumar and Satyendra were brought on record by the investigating officer on 20.6.2014. The police recorded the statement of Sateyndra on 10.07.2014 wherein he supported the version of the FIR but has failed to answer the crucial questions about the entire incident. Thereafter on 19.7.2014 through CD No. XXI, the investigating Officer brought on record the statements of aforesaid Dinesh Kumar, Smt. Rekha, Sateyndra and Harendra recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. so to pressurize them not to retract from their statements in future. Thereafter the investigating officer recorded the statement of aforesaid Smt. Rekha on 2.8.2014, Dinesh Kumar on 4.8.2014. After completion of the investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C., the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the co-accused persons, namely Praveen and Ankit and kept the investigation pending against the revisionists. The investigation thereafter was transferred to Crime Branch and during the investigation vide parcha SCD-III dated 17.11.2014, Call Detail Reports (CDRs) of the revisionist No.1 and his Security Guard namely Gagan and Ankur were obtained and brought on record. The statement of the aforesaid police security guards, namely, Gagan and Ankur of the revisionist No.1 were also recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. who supported the plea of alibi of the revisionists and further denied the involvement of the revisionist in the incident in question. After completion of the investigation against the revisionists, their involvement in the alleged incident was found to be false vide parcha dated 28.1.2015. After filing of the charge sheet against the co-accused persons cognizance was taken and later on the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was registered as Sessions Trial No. 297 of 2015 and is pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut. During the course of trial, the statements of PW-1 Dinesh and PW- 2 Harendra Singh were recorded in which they again reiterated the prosecution story as narrated in the FIR involving the names of the revisionists as accused. Thereafter on 25.1.2023, opposite party no.2/informant moved an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the revisionists before the trial court and the same was numbered as Paper No. 110-Kha but vide order dated 28.2.2023 the same was not pressed without obtaining any permission to file a fresh application. No further material was brought on record thereafter and without any new ground and without seeking any liberty to file a fresh application, while not pressing the application dated 25.1.2023, another application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by opposite party no.2 on 18.4.2023 by giving a lame excuse that the first application was not pressed under the threat of the revisionists, although the fact remains that the revisionist had no knowledge of the application dated 25.1.2023 as they were not attending the court and were not facing the trial.

(vi) The first informant/ P.W.-1 has again reiterated the allegations against the revisionist as alleged in the FIR which had already been tested/investigated by the investigating officer and the same was found to false in fair and impartial investigation and he was exonerated from the charge sheet. That no application under section 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the state (Prosecution) and the instant application under section 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the first informant on his own without protesting the final report at the stage of cognizance.

(vi) The precise argument of the learned counsel for the revisionists was in regard to the recording of satisfaction before summoning the revisionists under the provision of 319 Cr.P.C. and further argument was that the court ought to have recorded the evidence so placed on the point of alibi, which are incorrect. Such evidence cannot be accepted at the stage of consideration of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the merits of the evidence has to be appreciated only during the course of trial by cross-examination of the witnesses and scrutiny by the Court. This is not to be done at the stage when an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be entertained. In support of such plea, reliance has been placed upon the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others (Para 38) reported in MANU/SC/0546/2021 which has been followed in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 888.

("Emphasis added")

21. In the case of Sandeep Kumar (Supra), which has heavily been relied upon by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2, the Apex Court has opined in paragraph 12 as follows:

"The reasoning given by the High Court, cannot be accepted at the stage of consideration of application under Section 319 Cr.PC. The merits of the evidence has to be appreciated only during the trial, by cross examination of the witnesses and scrutiny of the Court. This is not to be done at the stage of Section 319, though this is precisely what the High Court has done in the present case. Moreover, the High Court did not appreciate the important fact that the charges being faced by the accused were under Sections 458, 460, 323, 285, 302, 148 and 149 I.P.C. Thus, one of the charges being Section 149, which is of being a member of an unlawful assembly, for attracting the offence under Section 149 IPC, one simply has to be a part of an unlawful assembly. Any specific individual role or act is not material. [See : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 632-Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Para 38]."