In this criminal revision, the High Court rejected the applicants' challenge to the order framing charges. Finding no substantial illegality and noting that the trial remains open to prove innocence, the Court held the revision lacked merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 26
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3362 of 2018
Revisionist :- Rajendra Yadav And 11 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- R.K.Paramhans Singh,Manvendra Narain Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri R.K. Singh on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2018 passed by Additional District Judge 8th, Azamgarh passed in S.T. No. 92 of 2018 (State Vs. Rajendra Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Rani Ki Sarai, Azamgarh by which charges were framed against the revisionists.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R.K. Singh for opposite party no. 2.
The argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants that no case is made out against them and they are innocent persons. However, considering the injuries on record, the offence under which charges were made, no case for interference is made out. It is worth noticing that the applicants have already moved an application before the court below for discharge in the same sections and the said application came to be rejected by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8 on 31.7.2018. Against the said order, the applicant Rajendra Yadav who is also the revision applicant no. 1 had preferred the Application U/S 482 No. 28032 of 2018 which was also disposed of on 16.8.2018 with a direction to the court below to frame the charges strictly in accordance with law.
Having perused the order of framing the charges, I find no illegality much less substantial one which may warrant interference with order passed by the court below. On query being made, learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any substantial and considering evidence in support of the argument advanced that the revision applicants have been falsely implicated and that considering the injuries, the offence is not made out in that very sections.
I am of the considered opinion, it is still open in trial for the applicants to prove their innocence in respect of the charges that have been framed under the order impugned.
In view of the above, the revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 4.10.2018 AKK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision against the order framing charges warrants interference.
Whether the case made out against the revisionists justifies maintaining the framed charges.
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
