JUDGMENT :

Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Mr. Tanzeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Ankit Saran, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. R.N. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

CHALLENGE TO THE PRESENT CRIMINAL REVISION

2. This revision has been filed to set aside the judgment and order dated 28.04.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.7, Meerut in Sessions Trial No.297 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 333 of 2014, under Section 302, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kankarkhera, District Meerut pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.7, Meerut.

GENESIS OF THE CASE

3. For the alleged incident dated 24th May, 2014 at about 11:30 a.m., a first information report has been lodged by Dinesh Kumar Singh i.e. informant/opposite party no.2 on 24th May, 2014 at 1300 hrs. (01:00 p.m.) against Krishnapal, Vikash and Praveen (Krishnapal and Vikas are revisionists herein). The said FIR came to be registered as Case Crime No. 333 of 2014 under Sections 504, 506 and 302 I.P.C., at Police Station Kankarkheda Meerut, District Meerut. In the FIR it has been alleged that on 24th May, 2014 the informant along with his sister and brother, namely, Rekha and Neeraj respectively were driving to Meerut in his Honda Amaze White Car to visit Dr. Anil Rastogi who was treating him. As they left their Lakhvaya, a White Scorpio Car overtook and stopped their car. The named accused persons got out of the Scorpio Car and threatened to kill Neeraj for helping Dharmendra Kirtal in a criminal case. They fired shots at Neeraj which resulted his death in his car. It is further alleged that the informant, his sister Rekha and Satendra and Harendra, who were coming behind his car saw the said incident.

4. After lodgement of the FIR, investigation proceeded and the Investigating Officer on 24.05.2014 recorded the statement of the first informant, Dinesh Kumar Singh under section 161 C.P.C. in which he reiterated the version of the FIR.

SPECIFIC CASE OF THE REVISIONISTS

5. On the next date of incident i.e. 25th May, 2014 statements of witnesses, namely, Satish Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar and Mehak Singh were recorded by the Investigating Officer under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. wherein they stated that the revisionists namely, Pradhan Krishnapal and Vikash were in the village on the date of incident and they have been falsely implicated in the murder of the deceased Neeraj. As such, the plea of alibi of the revisionists surfaced immediately after the incident. On 29.05.2014, the statement of sister of the deceased Smt. Rekha and one Harendra, who were mentioned as witnesses of the FIR, were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which they did not support the version as unfolded in the FIR and statement of the first informant/opposite party no.2 rather stated that one Praveern alias Billu and one Ankit were the ones who had shot the deceased and did not name the revisionists as one of the perpetrators in the incident. Thereafter the name of the revisionists was dropped/exonerated from the investigation and one Ankit alias Guddu was added as an accused in crime in question. However, the aforesaid witnesses namely Smt. Rekha and Harendra were pressurized by the first informant and on 20.6.2014, they have filed their affidavits supporting the version of the FIR and denied their earlier statements which were recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. Two more affidavits of the first informant Dinesh Kumar and Satyendra were brought on record by the investigating officer on 20.6.2014. The police recorded the statement of Sateyndra on 10.07.2014 wherein he supported the version of the FIR but has failed to answer the crucial questions about the entire incident. Thereafter on 19.7.2014 through CD No. XXI, the investigating Officer brought on record the state