AMAR SARAN,J - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) BY means of this criminal revision the revisionist has challenged an order dated 11.9.2009 passed by the Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Siddharthnagar summoning the revisionist in a case under section 304/34 IPC in exercise of powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that as per the FIR there was no sufficient evidence for summoning the revisionist because as per the FIR the informant was not an eyewitness as he has stated that when he reached the home of the revisionist and the co-accused Nafis, when he received information on mobile that his daughter had died, but he falsely stated in Court in his examination-in-chief that when he reached the place, then he saw quarrel taking place and Rahim, the revisionist was kicking the deceased, Shakir Jahan, whilst Reshma had given fist blow and initially summoned accused Nafis pressing her neck. By the time, he reached, the deceased had died and the revisionist and co-accused had left the dead body and had disappeared from there.
(3.) LEARNED counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Suraj alias Suraj Singh and another Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 844, Anil Singh and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 708 and Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1006 for the proposition that the powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and the probability of conviction needs to be assessed.;