- (1.) INSTANT criminal revision has been filed by Yaseen Ahmad challenging the order dated 25.2.2014 passed by the learned Additional Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Gonda in Sessions Trial No.55 of 2013, case crime no.276 of 2012, under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Katra Bazar, District Gonda by which the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Filed by the revisionist/complainant has been rejected.
(2.) AS per factual matrix of the case, the revisionist is the complainant in case crime no.276 of 2012, under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Katra Bazar, District Gonda. FIR was against Aqueel Ahmad, Smt. Shakira Begum and Smt. Sahiba. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against Akeel Ahmad and husband Yaseen Ahmad. Names of opposite party nos.2 and 3 were not included in the charge sheet. After committal of case, charges were framed against Akeel Ahmad and Yaseen Ahmad. Several witnesses were examined, and after that an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved, which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Aggrieved, this criminal revision has been filed.
(3.) HEARD Shri Mukesh Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionist; Shri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State respondent and Shri Rajendra Prasa Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 and also perused the record. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in the statement of PW -1 the complainant, PW -3 Naseeruddin and PW -4 Kaliya Sahabuddin there is no evidence for conviction of opposite party nos.2 and 3 for the offences under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was further submitted that prior to this application one application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was also moved, and on 26.4.2013, after examination of PW -1 Yaseen Ahmad and PW -2 that was rejected. After that two independent witnesses Nasirudeen and Kaliya were examined, and from a perusal of their statements, there is sufficient evidence to hold opposite party nos.2 and 3 guilty. It was submitted that viscera report clearly indicates that poison was given to the deceased. It was further submitted that there is material evidence. It was further submitted that there is material evidence on record for summoning opposite party nos.2 and 3 to face trial.;