IMPORTANT POINT
The evidentiary value of an injured witness and the need for a speaking and reasoned order while rejecting an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Nushrat Jahan, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Surya Prakash Singh as well as Sri Bipin Kumar Tiwari, who have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Ankit Verma & Ranvijay Singh Patel, opposite parties no.2 & 3 respectively. Said Vakalatnamas are taken on record.

2. In view of the proposed order, notices to private opposite parties are dispensed with.

3. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 04.09.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Court No. 04, Faizabad in S.T. No. 212/2021 (State vs Ram Shankar and Others) relating to Case Crime No. 223/2020, Police Station - Maharganj, District-Faizabad as contained as Annexure No. 01 of the present petition.

It is further prayed that the trial court may kindly be directed to summon the opposite party No. 02 to 06 of this petition under section 319 Cr.P.C. as accused in S.T. No. 212/2021(State vs Ram Shankar and Others) relating to Case Crime No. 223/2020, Police Station Maharganj, District-Faizabad.

It is also prayed that operation and implementation of order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Court No. 04, Faizabad vide S.T. No. 212/2021 (State vs Ram Shankar and Others) relating to Police Station - Maharganj, District-Faizabad may kindly be stayed during pendency of this petition.

Any other order or direction may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the present petitioner had sustained serious injuries at the time of incident in question. He has further submitted that one application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed (Annexure No.4) by one Dharmendra Kumar Singh, who had intimated the police on behalf of the petitioner regarding the incident in question as the petitioner was not in a position to apprise the police about the incident in question. In the aforesaid application, the applicant of that application, namely, Dharmendra Kumar Singh has stated that though Ankit, Ranvijay Patel, Ramsukh alias Sukhram, Manish and Ajay were amongst the assailants and in the FIR, their names have been indicated, but by filing charge sheet, their names have been deleted and charge sheet has been filed against other accused persons. It has been further stated in such application that Dharmendra Kumar Singh and two other witnesses have been examined. He has further submitted that in the chief-examination of those witnesses, names of above named accused persons have been indicated against whom the charge sheet has not been filed, therefore, the specific request has been made before the court concerned that by invoking powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. accused Ankit, Ranvijay Patel, Ramsukh alias Sukhram, Manish and Ajay be summoned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the present petitioner is not only the informant but is an injured person and he has not been examined by the court concerned till date. In the chief-examination of one injured witness Shivam, names of above named accused persons have been indicated, however, during cross-examination, clear version has not come. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in re; Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2023 SC 1736, wherein the Apex Court in para-26 observed as under:-

"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:

(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of