R.C.Deepak, J. - (1.) The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 15.9.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 7 Sitapur whereby he refused to summon Ram Pal Singh, Deepak Singh, Ajai Kumar Singh and Anil Kumar Singh under section 319 Cr. P.C. as an accused in ST No. 1163 of 2006 under section 302, 307 and 120-B IPC pertaining to Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur.
(2.) Heard Sri J.N. Chaudhary learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri R.P. Shukla learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the impugned order dated 15.9.2007 and the earlier order dated 29.8.2007 of this Court passed in criminal revision No. 413 of 2007.
(3.) The previous order dated 29.8.2007 in criminal revision No. 413 of 2007 was passed by this Court after discussing the evidence available on record, that in pursuance of the observations made by the Hon. Apex Court in its three Hon'ble Judges Bench in case of V. Saraba Reddy v. Puthur Rami Reddy and another, (2007) 2 SCC (Crl.) 412 ,' and in accordance with the sprit of section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure by issuance of a direction to the Trial Court to pass fresh order. The order dated 29.8.2007 is quoted below: "An affidavit by the revisionist filed, be taken on record. Heard Sri J.N. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri Prasant Arora, learned Counsel for the State and perused the record. It has vehemently been argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the murder of Brijesh Singh was committed on 1.10.2006 at 1 PM i.e. in the broad day light wherein one Man Singh also sustained fire arm injuries. In regard to the occurrence, seven persons i.e. Rajesh Singh, Ajai Singh, Rampal Singh, Deepak Singh, Veeru Singh, Vicci Singh and Anil Kumar Singh are named as accused in the first information report but during the course of investigation, it transpired to the investigating officer that there was no involvement of accused Rampal Singh, Deepak Singh, Ajai Singh and Anil Kumar Singh, as a consequence he exonerated them and did not file the charge-sheet but the remaining accused were charge-sheeted and they are facing trial of the said offence in Sessions Trial No. 1163 of 2006 pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Court No. 7), Sitapur. Kamlesh Singh is the informant in the case. His statement has been recorded in the said trial as PW 1 and he has deposed against the exonerated accused and there after made an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the abovenamed accused but the trial Judge vide order dated 5.7.2007 has rejected the application on the ground that the injured witness Manbendra Singh has not shown their complicity in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the occurrence has taken place in the broad day light. There is an injured witness. The participation of these accused / opposite parties have been shown in the first information report and P.W. 1, the informant / eye-witness has also deposed against them in his statement recorded in the Court. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the learned Trial Judge to have summoned them to face trial, but the learned Trial Court appears to have ignored this cognizable evidence and proceeded against the express provision of law. In above view of the matter, we find that the order dated 5.7.2007 passed by the learned Trial Judge requires interference and deserves to be set-aside and the same is set aside. The learned Trial Court is hereby directed to pass a fresh order within ten days, in view of the observations made above, from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order. The criminal revision stands disposal of accordingly".;