Sukhdev Prasad Verma Vs. Pappan Khan @ Sheikh Ameen and ors.

- indian penal code, 1890.sections 307 & 324: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] assault proof - appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - no evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - however opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury held, appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by himordershantanu kemkar, vacation j.1. heard shri k.p. kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant on the question of admission.2. by filing this revision under section 397/401 of the code of criminal procedure the petitioner complainant has called in question the order dated 4-4-2003 passed in sessions trial no. 186/2001 by vth additional sessions judge, rewa rejecting the application under section 319 of the cr.pc for arraying pappan, sharda pasi, nasim khan ramesh kevat as accused.3. the prosecution case as has been observed by the trial court is based upon the suicidal note of sanno. in the suicidal note there is no allegation against these persons so as to include them as accused for commission of offence under section 306 of the ipc. the trial court has considered the evidence recorded during the trial and has found that there is no enough material to show that these persons were involved in any manner regarding commission of offence and there is no indication in the suicidal note about any threat being given by these persons resulting in commission of suicide by the sanno. the trial court has duly considered the evidence on record and reached to the correct conclusion that there is no ground or material to implead the aforesaid persons as accused and therefore has rightly dismissed the application filed under section 319 of the cr.pc.4. this court finds no ground to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction in the impugned order dated 4-4-2003 passed by the trial court and hence this revision is dismissed summarily.