Allahabad HC APS Special (No 9)

 

Allahabad HC APS Special 

Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. contends that the statement of loco pilot recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has got no much relevance at the stage of summoning the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for facing the trial along with other co-accused. He further contends that the trial court has summoned the present appellant after considering the deposition made by P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 which clearly makes out a case for summoning the present revisionist to face the trial. It has also been contended that the CDR simply states the location of the mobile and not the location of the person and therefore, on the basis of the CDR, it cannot be said that the present appellant, who has been summoned by the trial court for facing trial, was not present at the place of occurrence. He further submits that for making out a case under Section 304B I.P.C. personal presence of the accused at the place of occurrence is not required under law. 

A perusal of the order reveals that the Trial Court has given its finding after taking into consideration the documents available on record. Present revisionist was made accused in the F.I.R. with an allegation that she had beaten up the victim.

 Deposition made by PW-1 & PW-2 who have been cross-examined by the defence have prima-facie corroborated the complicity of the present revisionists in the commission of crime. Case law of Brijendra Singh (Supra) cited by counsel for the revisionist is not applicable in the present matter. In the cited case, summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been concurrently decided by the trial court as well as High Court in favour of the first informant by which accused persons were summoned to face trial along with other co-accused. 

Accused/appellant has taken plea of alibi. Certain documents had been discussed by the investigating office for not arraigning them as an accused in the charge-sheet. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law cited, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the evidence, recorded during trial, was nothing more than the statement which was already there under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded at the time of investigation of the case. It was also observed that the trial court would be competent to exercise its power even on the basis of such statement recorded before it in examination-in-chief. However, it was also observed that the in case like the present one, which was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, several evidence were collected by the investigating officer during investigation which suggested otherwise.