Vinod Prasad, J. - (1.) THE order dated 11.2.2008 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge in ST. No. 1122 of 2006, State v. Ram Charan and another, under Sections 307 and 504, IPC has been questioned in this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at a great length and perused the record including Annexure-3 and the impugned order. Sri Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant raised many contentions first being that during the investigation the complicity of the applicant was found to be false, secondly, only the role of exhortation has been assigned to the present applicant in the deposition of the injured recorded in the aforesaid sessions trial, thirdly, the applicant has no criminal history and has got no conviction to his credit and lastly, he relied upon a judgment of Apex Court, reported in 2007 (58) ACC 254, Mohd. Shaft v. Mohd. Rafique and another, to support his argument that the summoning of the applicant exercising power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. is bad in law and the impugned order be quashed. Learned AGA vehemently refuted all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
(3.) DEALING with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant first of all material collected during investigation is wholly irrelevant and is beyond the scope of Section 319, Cr.P.C. What is to be looked into, for summoning a person under Section 319, Cr.P.C., is the recorded evidence during trial and not materials collected during investigation. All the allegations made during the investigation are alien for exercise of power under Section 319, Cr.P.C., therefore, first contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is hereby repelled. Coming to the second contention that the only role of exhortation has been assigned to the applicant, the applicant can very well be convicted with aid of Section 34 or 149 of I.PC.;