- (1.) S. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri Anurag Upadhyay, holding brief of Sri Ramesh Sinha, learned Counsel for the revisionists, Sri Vijay Singh Senger, learned Counsel for the opposite party, learned AGA for the State and perused the record, h
(2.) REVISIONISTS Bhagat Singh, Ramvir Singh, Amar Singh, Bajrang Singh and Raja Singh have made this revision application aggrieved by the order dated 19. 3. 2004 and 28. 1. 2004, passed by Special Judge, (EC Act), Orai in ST. No. 176 of 2003, State v. Ranvir Singh and others by which the revisionists have been summoned to face trial under Section 328/304 I. PC. on the basis of application moved by the Public Prosecutor under Section 319, Cr. P. C. The facts leading to the filing of this revision in brief are that Smt. Bittan Devi wife of Sri Prithvi Singh resident of Kanharpurp. S. Raider, District Jalaun on 21-6-2001 at 2. 10 p. m. filed written report at PS. Raider, District Jalaun stating therein that her husband is 75 years old. They are issueless. Prithvi Singh has six bighas of land in village Isuliya within the circle of PS. Ayana, District Auraiya and he also owns six bighas of land of village Kanharpur. Accused Bhagat Singh and his son accused Ramvir Singh have an evil eye on this land. A month earlier to this report Ramvir and Ranvir forcibly took Prithvi Singh to Auraiya and in collu sion of Registrar got a forged will executed by Prithvi Singh in favour of Ramvir. Thereafter they hatched conspiracy, administered some poisonous substance to Prithvi Singh and made him disappeared w. e. f. 15-6-2001. Bhagat Singh, Ramvir, Ranvir, Amar Singh, Bajrang Singh and Raja Singh were instrumental in this oc currence. She further prayed for release of her husband from the custody of the accused persons. It appears that Prithvi Singh died on 5-7-2001. The police in vestigated the case, recorded the statement of deceased Prithvi Singh during investigation. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against co-accused Ranvir Singh only on 16. 6. 2002 as the participation in the alleged incident of the revi sionist were found to be false and final report was submitted against them. First informant Smt. Bittan Devi filed a protest petition which was rejected on 10. 9. 2003 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai. Copy of that order has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the revision petition. During trial Court of Special Judge EC Act, Orai recorded the statement of Smt. Bittan Devi, first informant in which she named the revisionist as accused. Thereafter the Public Prosecutor on 28. 1. 2004 moved an application under Section 319, Cr. P. C. for summoning the revisionist as accused for offence under Sections 328 and 304, I. PC. The trial Court vide im pugned order dated 28-1-04 summoned the revisionist after allowing the applica tion of the Public Prosecutor. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the trial Court erred in passing the impugned order as it has been passed only on the basis of exami-nation-in-chief of the first informant Smt. Bittan Devi and Smt. Bittan Devi as is clear from the averment of the first information report is not an eye- witness of the occurrence.
(3.) PER contra learned Counsel for the opposite party and learned AGA sup ported the order. Perusal of the record goes to show that the revisionists have been sum moned by the Court below exercising the power under Section 319 (1), Cr. P. C. merely on the basis of statement of the complainant Smt. Bittan Devi. Smt. Bittan Devi, admittedly, is not an eye-witness of the incident which is alleged to have taken place with her husband Prithvi Singh. She was not cross examined by accused when this application under Section 319, Cr. P. C. was made.;