AMAR SARAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri A. Diljun, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party and the learned A.G.A. An order dated 21.10.2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC-2, Basti, summoning the revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C for facing trial in a case under Section 302, 120B I.P.C has been challenged by means of this criminal revision.
(2.) THE said order was passed after examination of the informant PW-1 Shahidun Nisha. She has stated in her examination-in-chief that there was litigation between the revisionist Mohd. Husain and her and the case have been decided in her favour. This had annoyed the revisionist Mohd. Husain. On the date of incident i.e. on 27.4.2003, when her husband, who was doing pairvi in the case and her son Shah Alam were proceeding to their new house for sleeping, as soon as they reached near the Electric Transformer and Rice Mill, the co-accused Irhsad and Tabarak came running from the Rice Mill. The accused Tabarak had an axe and Irshad carried a Danda and both of them assaulted her husband. On the alarm raised, the accused ran away towards the house of the revisionist, who was standing at his door and the revisionist is said to have stated "TUM LOGO NE HAMARA KAAM KAR DIYA HAI TUM LOG BHAG JAO". Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the said evidence is insufficient for imputing the role of conspirator to the revisionist. These facts were not mentioned in the FIR and hence the revisionist had not been charge sheeted. As the civil litigation had been decided in favour of the opposite party no. 2 a long time back, there was inadequate reason to commit the crime, although there was reason for false implication of the revisionist because of their success in the litigation. At the time of summoning, it has to be seen whether there was any possibility of conviction and that the order summoning an accused under section 319 Cr.P.C is an extra ordinary order. Learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no.2 states that there was sufficient material against the revisionist who was named in the FIR and that at the stage of summoning, no trial is to be conducted but it is to be only seen whether there was sufficient ground for proceedings against the revisionist.
(3.) FROM a perusal of the FIR, I find that the accused persons had rushed towards the house of the revisionist Mohd. Husain and entered it. No doubt, this line about the accused having done the work for the revisionist and that they should run away is not mentioned in the FIR but an FIR is not an Encyclopedia. Admittedly, the litigation had ended in favour of the deceased and the complainant, hence the revisionist could have entertained a grouse against the deceased and whether the motive was sufficient for committing the crime by the revisionist or whether it provided reason for false implication of the revisionist by the complainant is a matter to be appreciated by the trial court. The trial court is not expected to assess the probability of conviction in depth at the stage when it passes an order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Also an inference could be drawn from the remark made by the revisionist quoted above that he was engaged in a conspiracy with the other accused as normally against a conspirator, there is no direct evidence and the conspiracy has to be inferred from the circumstances.;