Point of Law: Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence - When strong and cogent evidence comes against a person before the Court and such power should not be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed impugning the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Addl Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Hardoi in S.T. No.111 of 2018: State vs Pawan Singh and Ors. arising out of Crime No.267 of 2017 registered under Sections 452, 302, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kachauna, District Hardoi.

2. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order has summoned the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on an application filed by the complainant, respondent No.2 to face trial as an additional accused.

3. An FIR was registered at Case Crime No.0267 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Kachauna, Hardoi on a written complaint of respondent No.2 having allegations that on 02.11.2017 at around 9:00 PM. accused Pawan Singh, Satyapal Singh (revisionist), Sonu Singh all sons of Barrister Singh, Harshit @ Jeepu s/o Satyapal Singh, Munna s/o Rajaram came to the house of the complainant and told the uncle of the complainant that he had to leave the land. When uncle of the complainant objected, all these accused entered the house of the complainant. Accused-Pawan, Sonu, Harshit and Munna caught hold of the uncle and present revisionist fired at the uncle of the complainant with illegal weapon. Hearing the sound of gun shot, complainant, his brother, Harisharan and his father Vishnu Narayan came out of the house exhorting the accused, then the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence extending threats. Uncle of the complainant had died on the spot, however, he was taken to the hospital at Kachauna where doctor declared him brought dead. The complainant is a practicing advocate at Hardoi which is evident from the FIR itself.

4. Inquest proceedings were conducted on the same day i.e. 02.11.2017 at 23:05 Hours. Post mortem was conducted on the next day and following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:-

(i) Fire arm entry wound of size 2 x 1.5 cm on interior aspect of left thigh. 7 cm away from root of penis; 13’ O clock position margin inflicted; blackening present;

(ii) Fire arm exit wound of 2.5 cm x 2 cm present on back of right thigh on gluteal region;

5. The investigating officer examined as many as 38 witnesses during the course of investigation and filed charge sheet against accused-Pawan Singh, Sonu Singh, two brothers of the revisionist, Harshit @ Jeepu son of the revisionist, Munna Singh s/o Rajaram under Sections 452, 302, 504, 506/34 IPC and absolved the revisionist of the charges as he was not found to be present at the time and place of incident when the alleged incident took place.

6. There is enmity between the complainant who is practicing advocate and the revisionist who happened to be the Village Pradhan. Respondent No.2 had instituted nine cases against the revisionist in which he has either been acquitted or final report has been filed in his favour or complaint cases have been rejected. Details of the cases instituted against the revisionist by the complainant have been given in Annexure-10 of the revision petition.

7. The Investigating Officer found the location of mobile phone of the revisionist at Sandila, 35 kms away from the place of incident i.e. village Tikari on the basis of Call Detail Record. It is also stated that a dispute took place between Pawan, brother of the revisionist and the complainant side in the evening of 02.11.2017 and Pawan Singh called the police by dialing number 100. Police reached the village at around 7:30 PM. Pawan Singh, brother of the revisionist also informed the revisionist about the dispute on his Mob.No.8009185252. Police reached village Tikari and settled the dispute in the evening.

8. It is further stated that respondent No.2 (complainant) after learning about the dispute between the brother of the revisionist and Munna came to the village and bet the brother of the revisionist. However, on intervention of the villagers, Pawan was separated from the complainant. It is also stated that soon there