Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1823 of 2010 Petitioner :- Rakesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Petitioner Counsel :- Adv. Dr. G.S.D. Mishra Respondent Counsel :- Govt Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This revision is directed against the order dated 19.3.10 passed by the
Special Judge, SC/ST (Anti Corruption) Act, Pilibhit in S.T. No.540/09
whereby the learned Judge allowed the application of the prosecution moved
under Section 319, Cr.P.C. and summoned the revisionist to stand trial with
co-accused Ronu.
It appears from the record that an FIR was lodged by Amar Pal, O.P. No.2
against the revisionist and Ronu alleging therein that on 25.1.09 at about 7.00
p.m. the revisionist and Ronu stopped him, threatened him, surrounded him
and then, Ronu wielded lathi on his hand. This FIR was investigated upon and
after investigation charge sheet was submitted only against Ronu. After
framing of the charge in the case statement of PW-1 Amar Pal was recorded
in which he stated the same facts which were narrated in the FIR. Thereafter,
an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution on
which the impugned order was passed.
Heard Dr. G.S.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA
and perused the record.
It has been argued by Dr. Mishra that neither in the FIR nor in the
statement of PW-1 Amar Pal any specific role has been assigned to the
revisionist and therefore, there could be no justification to exercise the powers
under Section 319, Cr.P.C. by the court. I do feel that this argument of Dr.
Mishra is not sustainable.
For finding a person guilty it is not necessary that he or she should do any
specific act during the incident. If from the facts of the case it is gathered that
if one person out of the many (less than 5) does an act in furtherance of the
common intention of all, then, inspite of the fact that a particular person had
not committed any acted act he could well be punished with the aid of Section
34, IPC and that is what exactly appearing from the facts of the present case.
It is apparent from the statement of PW-1 that he and Ronu jointly surrounded
the injured, threatened him and then, Ronu wielded lathi. In such
circumstances, it can safely be said that the act done by Ronu was in
furtherance of the common intention of these two persons. The statement of
Amar Pal recorded before the trial court was sufficient in all probability to
fasten guilt upon the revisionist and thus, the trial court, in my opinion, was
perfectly justified in exercising its powers under Section 319, Cr.P.C. against
the revisionist and to summon him to face the trial along with Ronu. There
appears no impropriety or illegality in the order impugned in this revision.
Revision is dismissed.
However, it is expected that the court concerned shall decide the bail
application of the revisionist as per the law laid down in Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009(2) Crimes 4 SC.
Order Date :- 21.7.2010
T. Sinha