RADHESHYAM KUSHWAH Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Sec. 397, 401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dtd. 19/7/2019 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No.84/2018, by which the Trial Court by exercising its power under Sec. 319 of CrPC has summoned the applicant as an additional accused.

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the complainant lodged an FIR on 28/6/2017 at 22:50 on the allegations that there is a public way in front of the house of the applicant and whenever the said public way is used by his family members, then the family members of the applicant used to abuse them and, accordingly, on 28/6/2017 the Revenue Officers had come from Tahsil Office for demarcation purposes. Her husband Kapil, father-in-law Kamlesh and younger brother-in-law Sahdev were sitting in front of their house at 06:30 PM. On the issue of demarcation, the applicant as well as Raju armed with Farsa, Laxman armed with Sabbal, Sudama armed with spade, Pradeep armed with axe, Khachera armed with lathi and three more persons whose names are known to them, came to the house of the complainant and the applicant and Raju started scolding her father-in-law that now he would deal with the demarcation and, accordingly, the applicant and Raju gave a Farsa blow on the head of father-in-law Kamlesh, as a result, he sustained injuries. When her husband Kapil and younger brother-in-law Sahdev tried to save their father, then Laxman, Sudama, Pradeep, Khachera and three persons who had come with them started assaulting them, as a result, they have sustained multiple injuries. When the complainant and her mother-in-law tried to intervene in the matter, then they too were assaulted by fists and blows. It is submitted that the statement of the complainant was recorded under Sec. 161 of CrPC and in the said statement also, she had levelled the said allegations.

(3.) During pendency of the investigation, a parallel enquiry was conducted by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, who gave a finding that at the time of incident, the applicant was not present on the spot and it appears from the mobile location that he was in Jaura Khurd. Accordingly, on 21/9/2017 the SHO Police Station - Station Road, Morena, after relying upon the enquiry report submitted by C.S.P., Morena, came to a conclusion that the applicant was not present on the spot and, accordingly, the mobile location of the applicant was collected and the statements of the witnesses were recorded, who stated that the applicant is suffering from paralysis and was under treatment at the time of incident, therefore, permission was sought not to file charge-sheet against the applicant as well as to file charge-sheet against the remaining co-accused persons. Accordingly the applicant was not charge-sheeted.