Mahendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 September, 2022

Mahendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 September, 2022

Background of fact:

 In brief prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R dated 21.12.2019, alleging therein that 1-1/2 years ago, co-accused, Hemant borrowed Rs.6,50,000/- from the informant’s uncle namely, Gyanendra Pratap Singh and despite several requests made by Gyanendra Singh, he did not return the aforesaid amount. Due to this, co-accused-Hemant feeling enmity with Gyanendra Pratap Singh, on 21.12.2019 at about 09:24 a.m., he called him by his mobile-phone bearing No.9311444194 near Dashahara Mobile Tower and when his uncle Gyanendra Pratap Singh along with one Laxmi Raj and Sateyendra Pratap Singh reached to the Bridge, then co-accused-persons namely, Hemant (revisionist), Lalit and two unknown persons started firing by using the pistol and revolver at Gyanendra Pratap Singh, as a result, he seriously injured and during treatment in the hospital, he died. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the first informant and other witnesses, who have supported the prosecution story, as unfolded in F.I.R. On the basis of above, as well as other material collected by the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer opined to submit a charge sheet. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet dated 15.03.2020, whereby one named accused namely, Hemant (revisionist) has been charge sheeted under Section 302 IPC and Section 30 of Arms Act, 1959, whereas other co-accused, namely, Mahendra Singh Chauhan s/o Dalbir Singh, Lokendra Singh @ Lalit s/o Sarjeet Singh have been exonerated. Perusal of the charge sheet further goes to show that as many as 34 prosecution witnesses have been nominated therein.

 After submission of above mentioned charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon the same by the concerned Magistrate. Since offence complained was triable by Court of Sessions, accordingly, concerned Magistrate, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No.660 of 2020 (State Vs. Hemant), came to be registered. Trial commenced. Charges were framed against charge sheeted accused who denied the same. Consequently, burden fell upon prosecution to establish the charges so framed by leading evidence.

Issue:

Whether learned counsel for revisionist submits that order impugned in present criminal revision is manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction and the same is unsustainable in law and fact.

Arguments:

It is then contended by the learned counsel for revisionist that revisionist was nominated as one of the named accused in F.I.R. dated 21.12.2019. However, during investigation, no such material was gathered by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which, complicity of present applicant was found to be established in the crime in question. Resultantly, applicant has been exculpated in the charge sheet dated 15.03.2020. He, further, submits that the Investigating Officer of the concerned case crime number has not yet been examined by Court below. In such circumstances, the court below ought to have deferred the disposal of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by first informant/opposite party-2, till statement-in-chief of the Investigating Officer was recorded as he will be the best person to demonstrate as to under what circumstances, complicity of present applicant was not found to be established in the crime in question. As the court below has pre-empted the disposal of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., serious prejudice has been caused to applicants. It is lastly submitted that no cast iron case is made out for summoning the present applicant as per testimonies of P.W.1 Raj Kumar and P.W.2 Satendra Pratap Singh. Nothing new has been stated by P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their deposition before Court below than what was stated in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Investigating Officer. Impugned order passed by the Court below is, thus, in teeth of Constitution Bench judgement in case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, as well as law laid down in S. Mohammed Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 226 and Brijendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) SCC 706 and court below has thus failed to exercise its jurisdiction “diligently” and has summoned revisionist in a “casual and cavalier manner”, inasmuch as, there is no “strong nor cogent evidence” against revisionist, which is a pre-condition for summoning a prospective accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

JUDGEMENT

Court has not come across any such material to conclude that Court below has not exercised its jurisdiction “diligently” and revisionists have been summoned by Court below in a “casual and caviliar manner”. Deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.2 falls in the realm of “strong and cogent evidence” and satisfies the twin test laid down by Constitution Bench in paragraph 105 of the judgement in Hardeep Singh (Supra). It clearly establishes the complicity of revisionists in the crime in question. For all the facts and reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in this revision. The Revision lacks merit, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.

This Article is written by Kiran Bosiya and of Rajasthan school of law for women, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin