Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J. - (1.) Criminal Revision 2300 of 2013 (Pankaj Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and another) and Criminal Revision 2323 of 2013 ( Rananjay Rai Vs. State of U.P. and another) have been directed against the order dated 7.6.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ballia in Session Trial No. 54 of 2009 (State Vs. Praveen and others) whereby the revisionists have been summoned on an application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ( to be referred as 'Code' in brief) by the O.P. No. 2 to face trial under Sections 147, 148, 304 I.P.C. read with Section 149; Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 149; Section 308 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C.; Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C.; Section 324 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C.; Section 504 I.P.C. & Section 506 I.P.C. Since both the above revisions arise out of the same order passed by the court below, they are being decided together by common judgment.
(2.) From the perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that an application 154 (Kha) was moved before the court below by the O.P. No.2, Nirmala Rai, in which she stated that the I.O. did not submit charge-sheet against Rananjay Rai and Pankaj Rai (revisionists). P.W. 1, Nirmala Rai was an eye-witness of the occurrence and had lodged a report at the concerned police station. Her cross-examination has been completed. The other eye-witness P.W.2, Amit Kumar Rai has also given complete statement before court below and both of them have corroborated the version of the F.I.R. In F.I.R., it is stated that Rananjay Rai with 'Farsa' in his hand and Pankaj Rai with 'Lathi' had assaulted the deceased and in the injury memo of the deceased, wounds and contusion marks have been found. Hence, it was prayed that both Rananjay Rai and Pankaj Rai ( revisionists) be summoned for facing trial and in this regard a large number of citations have been relied upon.
(3.) On the other hand, from the side of revisionists it was argued before the court below that they had no role in the occurrence. The said application had been moved with a view to destroying their life. The presence of the complainant, Nirmala was doubtful on the spot. She had lodged an F.I.R. after consultation. The statement of P.W.2, Amit Rai was not believable at all. In support of their contention, a large number of citations were relied upon.;