- (1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A.
(2.) BY the impugned order dated 15-12-2004, the Court below has summoned the applicant in a case of murder to face the trial under Section 319 Cr. P. C. after recording the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2. The learned Counsel contends that the statements of both the aforesaid witnesses - PWs. 1 and 2, whatsoever has come to light before the Court is that there could be suspicion and nothing beyond it against the applicant-revisionist for having committed the criminal conspiracy for the purpose to commit the murder of the deceased with the help of other accused-persons facing the trial. There is nothing in evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 to connect any conspiracy of the applicant for committing the said murder of the deceased. As such, the Court was not justified in passing the impugned order. A perusal of the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses recorded before the Court, shows that they had gathered some information from extraneous sources upon the basis of which these witnesses had sufficient reasons to suspect about the applicant having conspired with the accused of the present case for committing the murder of the deceased. This sort of evidence cannot be said to be such material which might legally justify for passing the order under Section 319 Cr. P. C. summoning the accused for the purposes of trial. Reliance is placed upon the case law of Michael Machado & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2000 (2) JIC 5 (SC) : 2000 (40) ACC 795 (SC ). The suspicion of somebody's involvement is not enough for the Court to summon him as an accused to face the trial under Section 319 Cr. P. C. The learned Counsel has also cited the case law of State of Bihar v. Chandra Bhanu Som & Ors. , 2003 Cr. L. J. 2793 and G. Palanisamy v. State, 2003 Cr. L. J. 4792.
(3.) IT thus, appears that the Court below without any suitable evidence, as required for the purpose, has passed the impugned order summoning the revisionist in the aforesaid murder trial as an accused. In view of the aforesaid the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 15-12-2004 is hereby set aside. .;