Raju Alias Rajesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 3037 of 2021
Revisionist :- Raju Alias Rajesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Prem Prakash,Abhay Raj
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
FACTS OF THE CASE-
O.P. No. 2 filed a FIR on November 24, 2016, at the Police Station in Ekdil, District of Etawah, with Case Crime No. 520 of 2016, allegedly under Sections 354-A, 342, 323, 286 IPC, 1860, against the defendants Rajeev son of Shiv Ram Singh, Chhote son of Kayam Singh, Chhange Singh son of Bhogi Ram, and unknown persons regarding the allegations related to the incident, whereby it was claimed that the O.P. No. 2 and her husband, Kamlesh son of Giriwar Singh, a resident of Ramnagar, P.S. Ekdil, Etawah, were at their agricultural field about farming activities related to sowing at around 7:00 in the morning.
The O.P. No. 2 was handled by Sri Rajeev son of Shiv Raj Singh, R/o Nagla Barra, Chhote son of Kayam Singh, resident of Nagla Pancchi, and Chhange son of Bhogiram, resident of Buapur, P.S. Ekdil, District Etawah, along with one unidentified person who arrived on a motorbike armed with a rifle and a pistol, and began to abuse O.P. No. 2, who screamed and attracted the attention of other people who were in the area.
The spouse of O.P. No. 2 attempted to free her from the grasp of the aforementioned accused, but instead they hauled him away and battered him while they rode their motorbike to an unidentified location.
The aforementioned accused were met by some individuals standing nearby, including one Santosh Chaudhary and Shivam Chaudhary, and as a result of their resistance, the accused left the husband of O.P. no.2 in a deplorable condition and fired in the air.
ISSUES-
Whether the order passed by the court below along with the application under Section319 CrPC is within the parameters as set out in the said provisions.
ARGUMENTS-
Following that, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet in Case Crime No. 520 of 2016, P.S. Ekdil, District Etawah before the court concerned under Sections 342, 323, 308 IPC against Manoj Kumar solely, and not against the applicant herein.
It appears that PW-1 being the O.P. no.2 gave her statement on 8.3.2018, wherein she had specifically taken the name of Rajeev son of Shivraj Singh resident of Nagla Bari, Ekdil, Etawah, Chhote son of Kayam Singh resident of Nagla Panchhi, Ekdil, District Etawah and Chhange son of Bhogiram, resident of Buapur, Ekdil, District Etawah and an unknown person supporting the same incident, which was narrated in the FIR dated 24.11.2016. On 17.8.2019, Kamlesh, the husband of O.P. no.2, also had his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, in which he specifically took the name of the applicant herein with reference to the commission of the offences that resulted in the filing of the FIR dated 24.11.2016.
Being dissatisfied with the non-submission of a charge sheet against the applicant, the O.P. no.2 filed an application under Section 319 CrPC on September 30, 2019, before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Etawah in S.T. No. 279 of 2017.
The aforementioned application filed by O.P. No.2 under Section 319 CrPC has been granted by virtue of an order dated 4.3.2021 issued by the court below while summoning the revisionist under Sections 342, 323, and 308 IPC.
JUDGEMENT-
The presumption of innocence is the general law of the land as every man is presumed to be innocent unless proven to be guilty. Alternatively, certain statutory presumptions in relation to certain classes of offences have been raised against the accused whereby the presumption of guilt prevails till the accused discharges his burden upon an onus being cast upon him under the law to prove himself to be innocent. These competing theories have been kept in mind by the legislature. The entire effort, therefore, is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence to get away unpunished. This is also a part of fair trial and in our opinion, in order to achieve this very end that the legislature thought of incorporating provisions of section319 Cr.P.C. It is with the said object in mind that a constructive and purposive interpretation should be adopted that advances the cause of justice and does not dilute the intention of the statute conferring powers on the court to carry out the above mentioned avowed object and purpose to try the person to the satisfaction of the court as an accomplice in the commission of the offence that is subject matter of trial.
Section 351 assumes that the Magistrate proceeding under it has the power of taking cognizance of the new case. It does not, however, say in what manner cognizance is taken by the Magistrate. The modes of taking cognizance are mentioned in Section190, and are apparently exhaustive. The question is, whether against the newly added accused, cognizance will be supposed to have been taken on the Magistrates own information under Section190(1) or only in the manner in which cognizance was first taken of the offence against the accused. The question is important, because the methods of inquiry and trial in the two cases differ. About the true position under the existing law, there has been a difference of opinion, and we think it should be made clear. It seems to us that the main purpose of this particular provision is that the whole case against all known suspects should be proceeded with expeditiously and convenience requires that cognizance against the newly added accused should be taken in the same manner against the other accused. We, therefore, propose to recast Section 351 making it comprehensive and providing that there will be no difference in the mode of taking cognizance if a new person is added as an accused during the proceedings. It is, of course, necessary (as is already provided) that in such a situation the evidence must be reheard in the presence of the newly added accused.“
written by Priyanka Davar an intern under legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments