- (1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. Petitioners have come to Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. with the request that the proceedings in S. T. No. 226 of 2005 under Section 307 I. P. C. Police Station Sumerpur, pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Hamirpur be quashed.
(2.) THE grounds on which this relief is sought, is three-fold: (i) Out of four witnesses, whose statements have been recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. only two have supported the prosecution case while the other two (Rajendra alias Bhola and Durga Prasad) do not support the same. (ii) That against injured Idris brother of the complainant, there are 17 criminal cases pending in the Courts and he is History-sheeter while against the other person complainant Subhan, who is also said to have been accompanying him, there are three criminal cases pending in the Courts. (iii) That a case of murder (Case Crime No. 499 of 2005) Police Station Sumerpur, of the father of the petitioners, who are brothers, is pending against the aforesaid two persons Idris and Subhan and the case in hand has been manipulated as a case of reprisal. The Petitioners applied for being discharge of which application was rejected by the Trial Sessions Judge and the case is fixed for framing of charge. That is how this petition. I have heard Sri V. S. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A. G. A. for the State.
(3.) ALL the three grounds mentioned by the petitioners for termination of proceedings against them, are wholly without substance. They themselves admit that there are two witnesses who claim to have seen the incident and have testified about the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the offence. How can it be said that two witnesses of fact besides the injured persons himself will not suffice for conviction. Even the testimony of a single witness is not unoften sufficient for conviction. This is settled law and there can be no controversy about the same. It is surprising to hear such a plea, having been raised from the side of the petitioners. As regards the criminal cases pending against the aforesaid two persons and one of them being a history-sheeter, this is also no ground, at all, for assuming that they could not be assaulted like this and that their allegation is liable to be summarily rejected on this ground.;