1

Reserved on 15.12.2020

Delivered on 08.02.2021

Court No. - 45

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1485 of 2020

Revisionist :- Sundar Bhati

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

Counsel for Revisionist :- Dheeraj Singh (Bohra)

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Harikesh Kumar Gupta

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

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.

Pleadings are exchanged between the parties.

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.

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.

2

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.

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

3

regard