MOHIT@SONU & ANR VS. STATE OF U.P. & ANR ON 1st JULY, 2013
| Citation | 2013 |
| Date of Judgment | 1st JULY, 2013 |
| Court | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| Case Type | CRIMINAL |
| Appellant | MOHIT ALIAS SONU AND ANOTHER |
| Respondent | STATE OF U.P AND ANOTHER |
| Bench | P. SATHASIVAM, M.Y. EQBAL |
| Referred | Sections – 319. 397, 482, 147, 323, 504, 506, 304, of Cr.P.C. |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The respondent namely Deepak filed an FIR at the police station on 7th February 2003 stating that the accused individuals had attacked Deepak’s uncle with different tools namely a lathi, danda, and hockey, and the respondent’s relative has been hurt grievously while he was taken to for the examination on 8th Feb 2003, it was found that he got hurt on the below left of the head badly. After the investigation made by the investigating officer I.O., it was found that the submitted Charge- sheet only mentioned 5 accused whereas there were 7 in total.
After the cross-examination in the trial court, it was found that the PW 1 cross-examination was not held judiciously. The respondent then filed the complaint U/S 309 of Cr.P.C. in the Allahabad high court against the order of the trial court. The high court viewed no error as the trial court has yet not concluded summoning the appellants for the matter and till then the cross-examination was not yet completed. Apart from the complaint, the other 2 prosecution witnesses were questioned and the second complaint in the trial court also got rejected on the ground of contradicting and ambiguous evidence.
ISSUES
- Whether the complaint raised by the respondent to summon the accused was rejected on correct grounds or not?
- Whether the decision of the session court on the refusal of the complaint raised by the respondent was right?
ARGUMENTS
The learned counsel of the appellant observed that the order passed by the high court was out of the limits of the court’s jurisdiction and even it was termed illegal. The learned counsel made the following consideration that priory, the order passed by the high court U/S 309 of Cr.P.C. was not sustainable. As the complainant made an application U/S 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed U/S 309 of Cr.P.C.
Lastly, proper notice and an opportunity should be given to the appellants to be heard as per the order of the session court judges so delegated to the case. On the petition made U/S 482 of Cr.P.C. the high court made that the order passed by the trial court was specified with evidence made U/S 309 was not in front of the high court and even the high court did not give the chance of being heard. the appellant’s counsel made it clear that the court should also rely on the evidence, not solely on the matter.
So the learned counsel of the appellant concluded that the decision made to not summon the accused was correct as the witnesses were changing their statements as they contradicted the presence of the remaining accused. Whereas, the learned counsel of the respondent had their allegations that the decision of the trial court about not summoning the accused was a blunder mistake on the side of the court. The learned counsel in their reference used the precedents of previous cases where the court had made their corrections on similar grounds.
JUDGEMENT
Both of the learned counsels of the appellants and the respondent had made their allegations clear and many references of precedents were given by both the counsels. Concerning section 399 tells about the revision of the power of the trial court whereas section 401 talks about the revision of the power of the high court which tells that the high court can look into any criminal case for its vagueness and ambiguity.
Even in the previous sessions’ court judgment, the application’s refusal was considered inappropriate as the ground on which the respondent made the application was correct as the witness was even altering the statements made by themselves. The court even observed that the allegations of the learned counsel of the appellant were correct due to which the court decision was in favor. The grant of leave was made as per the ambiguous decision made by the court.
Thus, the court found that the high court made a mistake in ignoring the application made by the respondent on the grounds of summoning the 2 accused. This was also made clear that while the investigation the other two accused even had to be summoned as they were also part of the crime. And also whether vicariously or not involved but they were mentioned in the FIR The court then ordered the high court that the concerned matter should be open with fresh affidavits and all the necessary procedures.
REFERENCES
https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/42441439/?formInput=sonu
written by lakshika tomar intern under legal vidhiya.
