Ranjana Pandya, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 3.6.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in Case Crime No. 436 of 2010 under Sections 302 and 120B, I.P.C. and 3/25, Arms Act, Police Station Kaptanganj, District Basti in S.T. No. 11 of 2013 by which the discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected.
(2.) ACCORDING to the F.I.R., the complainant Ram Raj Mishra is resident of village Keshawpur, police station Parashurampur Basti. On 26.5.2010 he accompanied his son Subhash Mishra on the motor -cycle of Shiv Narain Dubey (being Discover No. U.P. 42 N 5035) was going back to Basti from the court. As soon as the complainant and his son reached Gramin Bank, Mehrajganj at about 10.30, a motor -cycle [bearing No. U.P. 51 A 7558] driven by Sanjai Kumar Singh came from behind on which Anand Pandey alias Virendra Pandey and Hanumat Pandey were sitting and stopped the motor -cycle of the complainant. Sanjai Kumar Singh asked the other accused to fire at Subhash, who was inimical to the son of the complainant due to thekedari. On this Anand Pandey and Hanumat Pandey, who were holding country made pistols in their hands, fired at Subhash with intention to kill him. The fire hit Subhash, who ran to save his life but again Anand Pandey and Hanumat Pandey fired at Subhash and he fell down. All the three accused thinking the son of the complainant to be dead, leaving their motor -cycle, tried to flee away. After the offence, there was hue and cry in public due to which the traffic was jammed. Some brave people from the public caught hold of the miscreants. Meanwhile, two constables reached the spot. This occurrence was witnessed by Ram Kishor Tiwari and Vinod Kumar Mishra. This murder was planned by the enemy of the complainant, namely, Ram Surat Pandey. Accused Ram Surant and the complainant are having inimical terms due to a land dispute. During the course of the trial, the revisionist moved discharge application, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge against which the revisionist has come up in revision.
(3.) IT is settled principle of law that the revisional jurisdiction is not as wide as the appellate jurisdiction and under the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is required to exercise its powers where there is material irregularity or manifest error of law or procedure, or there is misconception or misreading of evidence or where the court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised the jurisdiction wrongly and perversely or where the facts admitted or proved do not disclose any offence.;