Manoj Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Vinay Saran for the revisionists; learned A.G.A. for the State; and perused the record.
(2.) THE instant revision has been filed against the order dated 12.06.2015 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas), Mainpuri in S.T. No. 98 of 2007, arising out of Case Crime No. 168 of 2004, P.S. Dannahar, District Mainpuri, whereby the application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has been allowed and the revisionists have been summoned as additional accused to face trial along with other accused under Sections 307/34 and 504 IPC. A perusal of the record would go to show that the first information report was lodged nominating four persons namely, Dinesh, Ram Naresh and the revisionists. The police investigated the case and sent only two accused, namely, Ram Naresh and Dinesh for trial. The trial proceeded. After recording the statement of PW -1, who was one of the persons injured in the incident, an application was moved to summon the revisionists as additional accused, which was rejected by order dated 18.07.2007 on the ground that there appeared to be some inconsistency in the statement of P.W. 1 made during trial with that recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. as also on the ground that several persons who were stated to have witnessed the incident had given their affidavits to the investigating officer exonerating the accused. It is important to note that at the time when the said application was rejected, PW -1 had not been cross examined and the other prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined.
(3.) THEREAFTER statements of PW -2, another person injured, and PW -3, the doctor, who examined the persons injured, were recorded. Again application was moved to add the revisionists as accused, which was rejected by order dated 31.01.2009.;