Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:207774

RESERVED

Court No. - 79

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4592 of 2022

Revisionist :- Ajay Alias Arjun And Another

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Ronak Chaturvedi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dileep Kumar Pandey

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

1.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against the

order dated 06.09.2022, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Court No. 15, Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 1085 of 2021 (State vs.

Pradeep Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 30 of 2021,

under Sections 147, 148, 302, 342, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station

Partapur, District Meerut, by which, the discharge application filed by the

revisionists was rejected.

2.

Heard Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionists,

learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

3.

Brief facts of the case is that the opposite party no. 2 had lodged a

first information report on 16.01.2021 against Dr. Pradeep, his wife and

son with the allegations that they were abusing the son of informant

namely Vikash @ Aakash aged about 18 years and assaulted with lathi,

stick and iron rod and his son received grievous injuries. The case was

registered as Case Crime No. 0030 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 307,

352, 506, 325 I.P.C., in Police Station Partapur, District Meerut.

4.

The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of informant

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who has supported the prosecution case. The

Investigating Officer had also recorded the statements of independent

witnesses namely Pramod, Krishna and Preetam, who have also supported

the prosecution case and it has been stated that the revisionists and other

co-accused persons who were armed with country made pistol and iron

rod have assaulted the son of informant. During treatment, the son of

opposite party no. 2 died on 28.01.2021.

5.

The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation has

submitted charge sheet on 29.04.2021 against revisionists and other co-

accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 302, 342, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C.

The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and summoned the

revisionists along with other co-accused persons to face trial.

6.

The revisionists had moved an application under Section 227

Cr.P.C. for discharge on 08.08.2022 claiming discharge on various

grounds. It is pleaded in the discharge application that the revisionists are

innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in this case. The

discharge application was rejected by trial court vide order dated

6.9.2022, which is impugned in the present criminal revision.

7.

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the

revisionists are not named in the first information report. There is no

external injury to the deceased and as per postmortem report the cause of

death is septicaemia due to chronic illness of multiple organs. The

Investigating Officer without conducting fair investigation has submitted

charge sheet against the revisionists and other accused persons. The

Investigating Officer did not collect the C.C.T.V. footage of place of

incident and even had not collect the C.D.R. of revisionists nor verified

the location of revisionists. There are material contradiction in the

statements of informant and other witnesses and postmortem report of the

deceased was also not supported the prosecution case. A false recovery of

iron rod alleged to be used for committing the crime has been shown from

the possession of revisionist Mukesh. Lastly, it is submitted that the

Investigating Officer has failed to consider that death was not occurred on

account of any physical injury received by the deceased. No offence

against the revisionists is made out, but the Investigating Officer in a very

2 of 6

ca