IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) CRIMINAL REVISION No.185 of 2008 Kayum Hasan and another … Revisionists Versus State of Uttarakhand and another … Respondents (2) CRIMINAL REVISION No.146 of 2008 Mansab Ali … Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and another … Respondents Dated: March 2, 2009 Sri S.S. Bhandari, Advocate for the revisionists Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for State/Respondent No.1 Sri R.K.S. Verma, Adv. for Respondent No.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Both these criminal revisions have been preferred against the common order dated 27.06.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/I FTC, Roorkee, Distt. Hardwar and the facts in these revisions are also common and further the disputed question involved in both these revisions is also one and the same, hence both the revisions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. These criminal revisions, preferred by the revisionists under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), are directed against the common order dated 27.06.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Ist FTC, Roorkee, Distt. Hardwar in S.T. No.83/2008, State Vs. Parvez @ Bittoo, by which the application moved by prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the revisionists-Kayum Hasan, Tauhid @ Lalu and Munsab Ali have been summoned in connection with Case Crime No.391/2007 u/s 302 IPC. 3. I have heard Sri S.S. Bhandari, Advocate for the revisionists, Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri R.K.S. Verma, Adv. for Respondent No.2 and perused the entire material available on record. 4. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 5.11.2007 at 8:40 P.M., one Iddu, Chowkidar lodged an FIR at P.S. Laksar, Distt. Hardwar with the averments that on 5.11.2007 at about 4:45 P.M., some altercation took place between Parvez @ Bittu and Zakir. In that altercation, Parvez @ Bittu in the encirclement (GHER) of Zakir, caused injury with firearm to Zakir with intention to kill him. It was also averted that Zakir was taken to Roorkee by his relatives in serious condition. It was further averted that in the year 2001, father of Parvez namely Dr. Ayub was murdered by Zakir and his associates and due to this enmity, this incident had occurred. Thereafter, on 06.11.2007, Shahran S/o Zakir also moved an application before In-charge Inspector, P.S. Kotwali Laksar stating therein that on 5.11.2007 at about 4:00 P.M., his father Zakir Hussain was sitting in his house. At that time, revisionists Mansab Ali, Kayum Hasan and Tauhid @ Lalu along with accused Parvez @ Bittu, who were having enmity in a murder case with them, came inside the house of complainant. It was further averted that revisionists had caught hold Zakir and accused Parvez caused injuries with firearm on the forehead of Zakir due to which he fell down on the spot. After that the accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence by giving threat. Thereafter, injured Zakir Hussain was taken at Laksar Hospital and after seeing his serious condition, they took him to Roorkee Hospital where after considering his serious condition, he was referred to Jolly Grant, Doiwala. On 6.11.2007 Zakir Hussain succumbed to his injuries. The entry to this effect was also made in the G.D. Report No.24 dated 6.11.2007 and the case was converted to Section 302 IPC from Section 307 IPC. After the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet only against the accused Parvez @ Bitto u/s 302 IPC in the above- said offence. At the time of trial, when the evidence was recorded, the statement of P.W.1 Kurban was recorded. P.W.1 Kurban has stated in his statement that apart from the accused Parvez @ Bittu, revisionists Munsab Ali, Kayum Hasan and Tauhid @ Lalu were also involved in the above- said crime and they instigated the accused Parvez @ Bittu to take the revenge of murder of his father due to which the aforesaid crime was committed. The prosecution also moved an application signed by Kurban Ali to this effect u/s 319 Cr.P.C. before Ist FTC/Addl. Distt. Judge, Roorkee with a prayer to summon the revisionists. The court below after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case vide its order dated 27.6.2008 allowed the application moved u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the revisionists as discussed above. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionists have preferred these revisions before this Court. 6. The court below after considering the statement of P.W.1 Kurban summoned the revisionists in connection with Case Crime No.391/2007 u/s 302 IPC. The statement of P.W.1 Kurban is essential to mention here which is reproduced as under: - “eSa gkftj vnkyr eqyfte izost mQZ fcVVw dks tkurk gw¡A ?kVuk 5-11-07 dh le; fnu ds pkj lok pkj cts dk FkkA ge vius ?kj esa dke dj jgs FksA esjs lkFk ?kj esa lgsjku cgu fjgkuk o esjh [kkyk dk yM+dk ljQjkt o esjs vCck tkfdj gqlSu dke dj jgs FksA eqyfte dk ?kj gekjs ?kj ds lkeus gSA v fHk; qDr i zost gekj s ?kj esa v k; k ml d s l kFk r hu t us v kSj FksA eul c v y h ml d k HkkbZ d ; ~; we] eul wc d k y M+d k r ksfgn Hkh FksA bu r huks y ksx ksa us v fHk; qDr l s d gk fd v kt v i us cki d k cny k y s y sA bl i j v fHk; qDr us cUnwd l s esj s v Cck d s mi j x ksy h py k nh t ks ml d s ekFks i j y x hA oks x ksy h y x us l s uhps fx j x ; sA ge mUgsa ihNs okys jkLrs ls tehu ds [ksr ls gksrs gq, dqN nwj rd yk;sA fQj eksVj lkbZfdy ij cSBk dj iIiw uflZax gkse yk;s ogka ls mUgksus vLirky esa mUgsa xywdkst yxk;k rFkk bUtSD’ku yxkdj tksyhxzkUV ds fy, jSQj dj fn;kA ge mUgsa ogka ys x;s tgka mudh fnukad 6-11-2007 dks mudh e`R;q bu pksVksa ds dkj.k e`R;q gks x;h FkhA e`R;q rM+ds esa gqbZ FkhA ?kVuk ds oDr ekSds ij xkao ds fouksn] bjQku vkfn yksx vk x;s FksA vfHk;qDr izost ds lkFk tks vU; yksx vk;s Fks muesa eulc dh d;~;we dh ofYn;r vgen vyh gS tks gekjs gh xkao ds jgus okys gSA xxxxxxxxxxxx bl Lrj ij oknh eqdnek dh vksj ls izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 319 n0iz0la0 izLrqr fd;k x;k vkSj rdZ fn;k x;k fd 'ks"k lk{; vafdr djus ls igys bldk fuLrkj.k fn;k tkosA Cross is deferred Lkqudj rlnhd fd;k” 7. From a perusal of the statement of P.W.1 Kurban referred above, prima facie it reveals that the revisionists Kayum Hasan, Tauhid @ Lalu and Mansab Ali were also involved in the aforesaid crime. Even learned counsel for the revisionists could not point out any error in the impugned order dated 27.6.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge/ Ist FTC, Roorkee, Distt. Hardwar. The court below has passed the impugned order after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the court below was correct and justified in summoning the revisionists’ u/s 319 Cr.P.C. The impugned order has been passed by the court below on the basis of the evidence recorded before it i.e. on the basis of statement of Kurban in which he has also stated that the present revisionists instigated the accused Parvez @ Bittoo to commit the murder of Zakir. At this stage, prima facie it appears that there was evidence before the court below to summon the revisionists in the aforesaid crime. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order dated 27.06.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Ist FTC, Roorkee, Distt. Hardwar. 9. For the reasons as recorded above, both the revisions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 18.9.2008 passed in CRLR No.146/08 and order dated 25.9.2008 passed in CRLR No.185/08 are hereby vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) March 2, 2009 Rajeev Dang