Rajveer Singh vs State of U.P.

. Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisional and the learned A.G.A.

The revisionist is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.1.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Etah in S.T. No. 810 of 2004 (State v. Karuwa) S.T. No. 810 of 2004. By the impugned order, the trial court has refused to summon the accused Virendra Singh u/s 319, Cr. P.C.

The prosecution case against the said accused Virendra Singh is that the accused Virendra Singh had fired with his country made pistol at the injured Ramveer on 31.10.2001 because of which Ramveer sustained grievous injury. This incident occurred at 8.30 p.m. in the night. This version of the F.I.R., made accused Virendra Singh, the prime accused in the crime. However, the Investigating Officer for reasons best known to it, did not charge-sheet Virendra Singh. When the trial was committed to the court of sessions, the statement of the informant Rajveer was recorded as P.W. 1. In the aforesaid statement, Rajveer reiterated the same allegations, which he had levelled in the F.I.R. against Virendra Singh and thereby anointing the role of firing to accused Virendra Singh. After the said statement was recorded in the sessions trial an application u/s 319, Cr. P.C. was filed by the prosecution for summoning Virendra Singh as accused in the trial, which application has been rejected by the trial court by passing the impugned order.

After hearing the counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., I am of the view that the trial court committed a miscarriage of justice in rejecting the application of the prosecution for summoning accused Virendra Singh. From the statement given in the sessions trial, the informant had anointed the role of firing to the accused and causing grevious injury to the victim Ramveer. The statement so given by Rajveer P.W. 1 in this aforesaid sessions trial by itself was sufficient to summon Virendra Singh as an accused. The statement of Rajveer if believed to be true would have been sufficient to convict Virendra Singh for the offences, which has been committed by him. In view of such evidence, the trial Judge should have summoned the accused Virendra Singh u/s 319, Cr. P.C. without further postponing the matter. The Apex Court has reiterated many times that on the basis of examination-in-chief alone the person can be summoned as an accused. The judgment of the Apex Court, which has been quoted by the trial court in the impugned order does not help the accused person at all. The quoted portion of the Apex Court order is against the view, which has been taken by the trial court while passing the impugned order. The quoted portion of the Apex Court judgment has got no relevancy in the present context as the application u/s 319, Cr. P.C., was filed by the prosecution after the evidence of P.W. 1 was recorded in the trial. In the quoted portion the Apex Court has said that for summoning an accused u/s 319, Cr. P.C., the evidence, which has been recorded during the trial is the only relevant material and for the aforesaid section, the material contained in the case diary is not relevant. This view of the Apex Court supports the contention of the prosecution that from the evidence P.W. 1 Virendra Singh should have been summoned by the trial court.

In view of above discussions, the impugned order dated 12.1.2007 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Judge for reconsideration of the prayer of the prosecution for summoning Virendra Singh as accused.

With the aforesaid directions, this revision is allowed at the admission stage itself.