- (1.) By these criminal misc petitions, challenge is made to the orders dated 25.10.2013, by which, revision petitions preferred by the non-petitioners were allowed and the orders dated 29.9.2010, passed by the trial court, allowing the applications under section 319 Cr.P.C., were reversed.
(2.) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that on FIR, investigation was made followed by charge sheet against only two accused leaving others. The court framed charges and thereupon evidence was led. In the evidence, role of other accused also came, thus application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed. The applications aforesaid was allowed by the trial court, however, the order was reversed by the revisional court. It is in ignorance of the legal provisions as, at the stage of considering application under section 319 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary that evidence should of the nature, it remains unrebutted, may lead to conviction. Reference of the judgment in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & ors, 2014 3 SCC 92 has been given. Therein, the issue aforesaid was answered by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The order of the revisional court may be quashed by maintaining order of the trial court.
(3.) Learned counsel for non-petitioners submit that while lodging the FIR, allegations against the accused party was for use of sharp-edged weapon, apart from 'lathis'. All the injuries sustained by the injured are by the blunt object. In the statements under section 161 Cr.PC, allegations made in the FIR were reiterated. The police filed charge sheet against two persons. After framing of charges, evidence was led by the prosecution. Therein, names of other accused were also given for causing the offence. An application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed at that stage. It was allowed by the court below, however, the order of the trial court was set aside by the revisional court. It was mainly for the reason that as against 9 injuries, petitioners implicated of 13-14 persons. The allegation is for use of sharp-edged weapon by Matadeen and others, whereas, no injury has been received by sharp-edged weapon. It is also for the reason after the FIR and statements under section 161 Cr.P.C., improvement was made in the court statement for use of 'barchhi' from blunt side. The court found all those to be relevant to determine where application under section 319 Cr.P.C. is bona fide or not. Finding that no evidence exist for taking cognizance against others, revision petition was rightly allowed by the court. Thus, petitions may be dismissed.;