Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J. - (1.) This criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 2.5.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Basti in Sessions Trial No. 150 of 2010 (State Vs. Vikarma in Case Crime No. 210 of 2010, under sections 307, 436 IPC whereby learned court rejected the application of the revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C.
(2.) It is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the finding recorded by the trial court is erroneous and not sustainable in the eye of law. Further contended that the witnesses produced in the court below alleging involvement of opposite party nos. 2 to 5 have been ignored and further there is corroboration and complicity in commission of crime by O.P. No. 2 to 5 in the statements collected under section 161 Cr.P.C. in investigation. Further contended that the impugned order is passed without following the mandatory provision of the criminal procedure and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 LawSuit(SC) 22.
(3.) From the evidence tendered before the trial court, it is evident that respondent nos. 2 to 5 are put the fire in the residential 'Madaha' of the complainant and tried to murder the informant and his family members who were sleeping in residential 'Madaha'. It is next contended that the civil suit between the parties are pending since 2010 but at the time of the incident no civil suit was pending between the parties. So, the finding recorded by the court below is against the weight of evidence.;