DAVENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Revisionist Davendra Singh alias Pintoo Baba filed this criminal revision for setting aside the impugned order dated 05.11.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2010, captioned as State vs. Dilbag Singh and others, arising out of first information report no. 349 of 2009, PS Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 147/148/149/307/504/506 and 349 IPC.
(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that summoning of an unknown person, named as Pooran Singh s/o Yara Singh by the Court below is improper. It is submitted that the person, who has been summoned as witness by the trial court is not mentioned as a witness in the charge-sheet. Statement of such a witness was not recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. It is also submitted that the parentage of aforesaid Pooran Singh was not disclosed by the complainant in the first information report. In a nutshell, learned counsel for the revisionist argued that a stranger can not be a witness in a case. The whereabouts of such a witness were neither disclosed by the prosecution at the time of investigation, nor at the time of filing of chargesheet.
(3.) Learned Deputy Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, in as much as, Pooran Singh was cited as a witness in the chargesheet, albeit, his parentage was not mentioned. While opposing the revision vehemently, learned Deputy Advocate General argued that Pooran Singh was not a stranger to the case, for his name was mentioned by the Investigating Officer as one of the witnesses. If the parentage of Pooran Singh was not disclosed, that itself nowhere suggests that said Pooran Singh was not present at the place of incident and did not see the occurrence. It is further submitted that Pooran Singh s/o Yara Singh is an injured witness and his medical report (paper no. 8-ka/12) is already on record. The name of Pooran Singh was cited by the informant in the first information report itself and even if it be conceded for the sake of argument that the statement of Pooran Singh was not recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that fact alone does not prevent the trial court from exercising its jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.