SUNITA CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) A first information report was lodged by PW 2
Ramesh Kumar against accused Anil Kumar on 09.03.2003,
in PS Jwalapur, Haridwar, which was registered as case
crime no. 73 of 2003, under Section 364 IPC. When the trial
began before learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge/FTC,
Haridwar, four prosecution witnesses were examined on
behalf of the prosecution. Thereafter, prosecution moved an
application for summoning Sunita Chauhan (present
revisionist) as accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., which
was allowed vide order dated 10.07.2008. Aggrieved
against the said order, present Criminal Revision was
preferred on behalf of Smt. Sunita Chauhan.
(2.) A bare reading of the first information report
will indicate that applicant Sunita Chauhan's name did not
figure in the first information report. Neither the informant,
nor any of his witnesses uttered the name of Sunita
Chauhan in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The
question of filing of charge-sheet against Sunita Chauhan,
therefore, did not arise.
(3.) Only one accused Anil Kumar was named in the
first information report. In all, seven accused persons were
charge-sheeted, three of whom were absconders. During
the course of trial, learned 3rd Additional Sessions
Judge/FTC, Haridwar, exercised his jurisdiction under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. only on the statement of PW 4 Ram
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.