Point of Law: Evidence recorded during the trial should be credible for commission of offence. Once the I.O. had collected the plethora of evidence and there is no act of commission of offence found against the person the trial court was at least duty bound to look into the same while forming opinion to summon

JUDGMENT :

BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anurag Verma, learned AG.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Sitapur in Case S.T. No. 772/2009, State versus Mainul Haq and others,arising out of Case Crime No. 534/2009, Under section 302, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station-Khairabad, District-Sitapur, summoning the revisionist as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial under Section 302/120-B I.P.C. Further prayer has been made that the proceeding of the case may be stayed during the pendency of the present revision.

3. The complainant had moved an application on 11.04.2012 to summon the accused-revisionist in proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In the said application, the complainant submitted that the revisionist was named in the F.I.R. In the complaint, it is also alleged that there was dispute of land property in between Azra Rizvi and Sagir Ahmad (revisionist) and her husband was threatened by the revisionist. It is further alleged in the application that in her cross examination before the trial court, she stated that when her husband went out from her house, she rang her husband after twenty minutes, who told her that Azra Rizvi, Sagir, Mainul Haq and 2-4 other persons were sitting with him. She further stated that it was the last seen evidence and on the basis of the said happening, the F.I.R. was lodged, but the police did not file charge-sheet against the accused. It is further stated that the complainant (PW-1) and PW-3 Misbahul Hasan have been cross examined and during the cross examination, PW-1 and PW-3 have specifically named the accused- revisionist. Therefore, he should be summoned and trial should be done.

4. The court below passed the impugned order dated 11.04.2014, by which the accused revisionist has been summoned, which has been challenged by the accused in present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the charge-sheet was filed against the accused, who committed the offence. It has been further submitted that there was no complicity for the offence found against the revisionist and, therefore, charge sheet was not filed against him, rather the charge-sheet was filed against Mainul Haq S/o Ainul, Zahid S/o Munne Khan and Zunaid S/o Shoaib Ahmad. He further submitted that even if the statement of PW-1 and PW-3 are taken into consideration, no offence is made out because no evidence had been produced by them which indicates that the revisionist is involved in commission of offence. He has further submitted that PW-1 has specifically mentioned the names Sagir S/o Munne Khan in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement but the revisionist is Sagir S/o Ali Ahmad and without ascertaining the parentage of the revisionist, the impugned order has been passed.

6. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjan Kumar Sarma vs. State of Assam, (2017) 14 SCC 359, Brijendra Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706, Arjun Marik and Others vs. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 372, Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 and one judgment passed by this Court in Application under Section 482 bearing No. 6936 of 2019 (Ravindra Nath Mishra vs. State of U.P.).

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the parentage of the revisionist is Sagir s/o Ali Ahmad, whereas PW-1 has stated the revisionist as Sagir son of Muneer. The parentage of the revisionist has neither been identified nor verified and the name mentioned by PW-1 is different because as per version of PW-1 the accused is Sagir s/o Muneer. The statement of PW-1 is annexed at Page 44 of the paper book, which clearly indicates that the accused is Sagir S/o Muneer, whereas the application has been made against the accused whose name is Sagir,