JUDGMENT :

Deepak Verma, J.

1. Heard Sri Dheeraj Singh (Bohra), learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Harikesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA on behalf of the State and perused the record.

2. Pleadings are exchanged between the parties.

3. Present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 12.02.2020 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Gautam Budh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No.454 of 2018 (State vs. Sundar Bhati & another) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby discharge application (5C) of the revisionist filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

4. The revisionist has challenged the revision on the following grounds:-

I. Because, the judgment and order dated 12.02.2020 passed by Court below is illegal, irregular, improper and incorrect as such the same is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court.

II. Because, the learned Additional District Judge/Court No.3, Gautam Budh Nagar, has not assigned detailed reasons for dismissing the discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist.

III. Because, the learned Additional District Judge/Court No.3, Gautam Budh Nagar, has not considered the material which the accused-revisionist produced at the stage contemplated in Section 227 Cr.P.C. to save lot more time in the name of trial proceedings.

IV. Because, the revisionist is not named in the F.I.R., his name does not find place in the statement of any material or independent witness of the incident.

V. Because, the investigating officer recorded confessional statement of co-accused Naresh Tewatiya on 04.12.2017 in police custody. In his statement Naresh Tewatiya revealed that; the brother of the revisionist namely Sahdeo Bhati met him in jail and during visit he became well known to Anil Bhati son of Sahdeo Bhati who planned for murder of Shiv Kumar (one of the deceased). Except this statement there is no evidence at all against the revisionist.

VI. Because, the Court below has recorded wrong findings that ; there is statement of the other witnesses apart from the statement of co-accused Naresh Tewatiya with regard to involvement of revisionist in the crime in question.

VII. Because, there is no evidence on record which goes to the root that; the revisionist had eve met with any accused and hatched any conspiracy to commit murder of Shiv Kumar (one of the deceased) or the revisionist had talked about the incident with any witness of the case, prior to the alleged incident.

VIII. Because, the confessional statement of only one accused which too does not show the direct or indirect involvement of the revisionist in the crime in question, prima facie does not attract section 120-B I.P.C. against the revisionist, moreover, the confessional statement of any accused in police custody before police is not admissible under the provision of Evidence Act.

IX. Because, the law is trite that; only on the basis of provable suspicion any charge can not be levelled to anyone and there may be some suspicion but such suspicion cannot take form of evidence.

X. Because, the Court below has rejected the discharge application (5C) filed by the revisionist, in cyptic manner and without recording any cogent and reasoned findings.

5. That the First Information Report lodged by Yogesh Yadav, opposite party no.2 on 17.11.2017 as Case Crime No.751 of 2017 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar regarding incident which took place on 16.11.2017, alleged therein that when his Tau’s son (deceased) was going to home from school with his gunner and driver by his Fortuner Car, two motorcycles on which five persons were sat started firing over the car. Car stopped at divider. Some more person reached there, fired 30 to 40 round and ran away