# Ram Babu and others Revisionists v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 411
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001-06-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1756 of 2001
- **Bench:** M.C. Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-babu-and-others-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-39778
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-section 319
is not to be controlled by the result of
the investigation. In exercising power
under section 319 Cr.P.C. the Court is to
be guided by the evidence that has come
before it (held in para 10 & 11).

In view of the evidence that has come up
before the Court at the trial they have to
be tried for the offences in question
alongwith Guddu, who was already
facing trial.

The impugned order passed by learned
Trial Judge is perfectly justified, not
suffering from any illegality, impropriety
or
incorrectness.
The
revision
is
dismissed.
Case Law Preferred
(1) (2) JIC 5 (SC)

## Text

2 All] Ram Babu and others Vs. State of U.P. and another
411
possibly the same could not have taken
into account because of the fact that for
the first time it has been brought on the
record of writ petition vitiates the orders
impugned in the present writ petition,
which as stated above, are otherwise do
not warrant any interference by this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India as the same are covered by the
concurrent findings of fact. No other point
was urged by learned counsel for the
petitioner.

9. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition deserves to be
dismissed as no ground for interference is
made out and is hereby dismissed. The
interim order, if any, sands vacated.
However, in the facts and circumstances
of the case the parties shall bear their own
costs.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD APRIL 03, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.C. JAIN, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1756 of 2001

Ram Babu and others
 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and another

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Tejpal

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.
Sri Amar Saran

Code of Criminal Procedure-section 319
is not to be controlled by the result of
the investigation. In exercising power
under section 319 Cr.P.C. the Court is to
be guided by the evidence that has come
before it (held in para 10 & 11).

In view of the evidence that has come up
before the Court at the trial they have to
be tried for the offences in question
alongwith Guddu, who was already
facing trial.

The impugned order passed by learned
Trial Judge is perfectly justified, not
suffering from any illegality, impropriety
or
incorrectness.
The
revision
is
dismissed.
Case Law Preferred
(1) (2) JIC 5 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble M.C. Jain, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionists, learned A.G.A. for O.P. no. 1
and Sri Amar Saran, learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2- complaint.

2. Through this revision the
revisionists seek to challenge the order
dated 27.6.2001 passed by the Sessions
Judge Jhansi under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
summoning them as accused in S.T. No.
112 of 2000. Notice had been issued to
the complainant-opposite party no.2 also
as per the order dated 11.7.2001 and he
put in appearance through his counsel to
oppose the revision, which is opposed by
learned A.G.A. also on behalf of the
State-opposite party no.1.

3. The brief resume of facts is
necessary
for
understanding
the
controversy properly. One Pramod Kumar
was murdered in this incident and his
brother Santosh Kumar sustained injuries.
Both of them sustained injuries of
firearm. Incident took place on 18.4.1999
at 11.30 a.m. and report was lodged 45
minutes later by an eye-witness Suresh
Kumar (brother of the deceased and
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
412
injured). 10 persons including the present
9 revisionists has been named as accused
in the F.I.R. with the allegation that all of
them had appeared at the spot armed with
firearms when his brother, Pramod Kumar
was sitting on a chair on the Chabutra
under the Banyan tree in front of his
house near pond. The weapons of all of
them were described in the F.I.R. All of
them had allegedly opened fire, killing
Pramod Kumar and injuring Santosh
Kumar. However, after investigation the
police submitted charge sheet only against
one person, Guddu who is facing trial in
the said case. The Doctor who conducted
the autopsy on the deadbody of the
deceased
and
prepared
medical
examination report of the injured Santosh
Kumar, had been examined as P.W. 1. It
followed from his testimony that both
victims sustained fire arm injuries.
Thereafter, the informant Suresh Kumar,
P.W.2 was examined, who gave evidence
against present 9 revisionists also besides
Guddu (facing trial) that all of them had
participated in this crime and had opened
fire. Thus, evidence came to be there
before the Court against present 9
revisionists as participants of this crime
where after an application was made for
summoning the present revisionists as per
provisions of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. As
learned Sessions Judge allowed the said
prayer, the revisionists have felt aggrieved
and have come up with this revision
before this Court.

4. It has been argued by the learned
counsel for the revisionists that the
deceased Pramod Kumar was himself a
hardened criminal and even P.W. 2,
Suresh Kumar and Santosh Kumar injured
are also of same hue and colour.
Reference has been made to the copy of
the judgement in S.T. No. 124 of 1981
passed by IVth Additional Sessions
Judge, Jhansi on 25.7.1984 whereby the
deceased, Pramod Kumar and his father
were sentenced to life imprisonment. This
argument is wholly irrelevant. Even if it is
taken for the sake of the argument that the
deceased Pramod Kumar had criminal
antecedents that did not mean that any
body could take away his life. He
continued to be the citizen of the country
and human being and was entitled to the
right of life. The crucial question is as to
who were the murderers.

5. Another argument of the learned
counsel for the revisionists is that as per
the testimony of Doctor examined as P.W.
1, the deceased had received a single gun
shot wound of entry and similarly injured,
Santosh Kumar also received single injury
of firearm. As per Section 149 of I.P.C.,
every member of unlawful assembly is
guilty of the offence committed in
prosecution of common object. As per the
F.I.R. and according to the evidence of
eye-witness, Suresh Kumar, P.W.2 (who
also happens to be informant), all the 10
accused persons came to the spot and had
opened fire. If it were so, they were
members of unlawful assembly with
common object of killing, Pramod Kumar
and injuring others. As mentioned above,
as per Section 149 of I.P.C., every
member of an unlawful assembly is guilty
of the offence committed in prosecution
of common object. Evidence having come
against 9 revisionists before the Court as
per the testimony of Suresh Kumar, the
Court was justified to summon them
under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. It is not the
stage of critically analyzing the ultimate
result of the entire testimony which has to
be done at the time of decision of the
case. Therefore, this submission also of
2 All] Ram Babu and others Vs. State of U.P. and another
413
learned counsel for the revisionists does
not carry conviction.

6. Yet another argument advanced
by the learned counsel for the revisionists
is that while passing the impugned order,
the trial court has also made reference to
the statement of Santosh Kumar injured
made by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
though he has not yet been examined at
the trial as a witness. I do not think that it
makes any difference for the benefit of
the revisionists if the trial court has made
a reference to such statement of Santosh
Kumar recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. Truth of the matter is that the
evidence has come before the Court
through the testimony of eye-witness.
Suresh Kumar, P.W.2 that the revisionists
were also the participants of the crime,
who appeared there with firearms and
opened
fire.
The
same
found
corroboration from the medical evidence
as per testimony of the doctor examined
as P.W.1. It is also significant to point out
that F.I.R. had been lodged without any
loss of time within 45 minutes of the
occurrence by an eye-witness and therein
also all the revisionists were named as
culprits with their weapons.

7.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionists
then
argued
that
after
investigation, the police did not find a
case against the revisionists and it was for
this reason that only Guddu was chargesheeted. It has to be clearly understood
that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
is not to be controlled by the result of the
investigation. In exercising power under
Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court is to be
guided by the evidence that has come
before it.

8. On the face of it, there does not
appear to be any reasonable basis for the
Investigating Officer to have submitted
charge-sheet only against Guddu, one of
the ten culprits named in the F.I.R. despite
the fact that there was categorical
assertion in the F.I.R. that the shots of
two, namely, Brijesh Kumar and Ram
Babu had hit the deceased and all of them
had opened fire. What I mean to emphasis
is that the conclusion arrived at by the
Investigating Officer is not to be taken as
the gospel truth or the last word as to who
have to be put on the trial on
consideration of the evidence that has
come before the Court. The last argument
of learned counsel for the revisionists is
based on the decision of the Apex Court
in the Case of Michael Machado &
others Versus Central Bureau (2) JIC 5
(SC). The Apex Court ruled that doubt or
suspicion is not enough to add another
person
as
accused.
Reasonable
satisfaction from the evidence already
recorded is the essential requirement to
exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
On the other hand, the submission of
learned counsel for the complainant is that
the fact of that case was different. In that
case 49 witnesses had already been
examined. Accused was sought to added
on the basis of evidence of the remaining
three
witnesses
who
only
created
suspicion. It may be pointed out that one
has
to
proceed
with
caution
that
observations made with reference to the
facts of a particular case cannot always be
transplanted on another which stands on a
different factual premise.

9. This court is of view that the case
relied upon by the learned counsel for the
revisionists cannot render any help to
them in the instant situation. Here, the
evidence of P.W.2, Suresh Kumar, eye-
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
414
witness does not only create a suspicion
against 9 revisionists regarding their
participation. It offers foundation for
reasonable satisfaction regarding their
participation as alleged. It is not to be
considered at this stage as to whether
ultimately
conviction
would
be
sustainable against all or some of the
accused or the case would result in
acquittal.

10. The question is of trial of
revisionists alongwith Guddu and I am of
the view that in view of the evidence that
has come up before the Court at the trial
they have to be tried for the offences in
question alongwith Guddu, who was
already facing trial.

11. My net conclusion is that the
impugned order passed by learned Trial
Judge is perfectly justified, not suffering
from
any
illegality,
impropriety
or
incorrectness. The revision is dismissed.
The learned Trial Judge shall proceed
further in accordance with law in
pursuance of the impugned order dated
27.6.2001 passed by him.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13873 of 2002

Ram Murti Tripathi

...Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar, Sampurnanand Sanskrit
Vidyalaya, Varanasi and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.M. Sahai,
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anil Tiwari

Statutes
of
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
University- 18. 14 and 18.15- the dispute
between teachers who claim to be
appointed as acting principal shall be
decided by the Vice-Chancellor under
statute 18.15. (held in para 5)

The
petitioner
may
make
a
representation to the Vice Chancellor
and if he does so the same will be
decided preferably within one month
thereafter in accordance with law after
hearing respondent nos. 3, 6 and others
concerned by a speaking order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner Sri K.M. Sahai and Sri Anil
Tiwari for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4.

2. The controversy in this case is as
to who is entitled to officiate as Principal
of
Rama
Nand
Peeth
Sanskrit
Mahavidyalaya Badrika Ashram Karn
Ghanta Varanasi which is affiliated to
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
Vidyalaya,
Varanasi.

3. The Statutes 18.14 and 18.15 of
the First Statutes of Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
Vishvadalaya
are
extracted
below:

"18.14. All disputes regarding
seniority of teachers (other than the
Principal) of the same college, shall be
decided by the Principal of the college
who shall give reasons for the decision.
Any teacher aggrieved by the decision of
the Principal may prefer an appeal to the
Vice Chancellor within 60 days from the
date of communication of such decision to
the teacher concerned. If the Vice