HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Sughar Pal Singh And 2 Others .....Revisionist(s)

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Meerut, in S.T. No. 559 of 2023 (State versus Sughar Pal Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 302 of 2019, under Sections 307, 324, 504, and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Pallavpuram, District Meerut.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 has been passed without proper consideration of the evidence and record and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the impugned order on framing of charge has been passed in a mechanical manner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the injuries of the revisionist Sughar Pal Singh and has not considered how he could have sustained injuries when, as per the prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 302 of 2019, he was the aggressor and was never assaulted by the first informant. 4. It is further submitted that the learned trial court, while framing the charge, failed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution has offered no explanation as to how the revisionist/Sughar Pal Singh sustained as many as ten injuries. No explanation was sought by the court from the prosecution regarding the injuries sustained by the revisionist/Sugharpal Singh. The learned trial court further failed to appreciate that no weapon of assault was recovered either from the possession of the revisionist or at his pointing out so as to substantiate the charge under Section 307 I.P.C.

5. It is also submitted that while framing the charge, the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the intention to kill is gathered from the nature of the assault, the weapon allegedly used, and the injuries caused thereby.

The learned trial court further failed to consider that the police submitted a charge sheet in Case Crime No. 302 of 2019 lodged by the first informant, while at the same time submitted a final report in Case Crime No. 303 of 2019 lodged by the revisionist, despite the fact that the revisionist sustained as many as ten injuries, which casts doubt on the fairness of the police investigation, as alleged by the revisionists.

6. It is further submitted that the alleged incident took place on 13.10.2019. The F.I.R. was lodged promptly on the same date. The incident is stated to have occurred at about 8:00 hours, and the F.I.R. was lodged at about 10:00 hours on the same day. The F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No. 302 of 2019 under Sections 506, 504, 324, and 307 I.P.C. The complainant is opposite party no. 2, and the accused persons are: (1)

Sughar Pal Singh, (2) Digvijay, and (3) the wife of Sughar Pal Singh.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that the injuries of Yogesh Chandra Sharma and Mayank Sharma are neither on vital parts of the body nor grievous in nature. The charges have been framed without proper appreciation of the evidence on record.

8. It is further submitted that an F.I.R. was also lodged by revisionist no. 1, Sughar Pal Singh, under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, in which the revisionist suffered ten injuries. A final report was submitted in Case Crime No. 303 of 2019. Thereafter, the revisionist Sughar Pal Singh filed a protest petition before the learned trial court on 05.03.2020. Subsequently, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut, summoned accused Mayank Sharma under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that t