# Ankit v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 600
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 6481 of 2016
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Shiv Shanker Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ankit-v-state-of-u-p-50389
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 299, 302 r/w 34 - Punishment for
murder - Life imprisonment - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154,
161 - Appeal against conviction - Chain of
circumstantial evidence missing - Benefit
of doubt - Allegations against appellants
that they were causing mental torture to
deceased and she had quarrel with her
husband on date of incident, committed
suicide - After investigation charge-sheet
submitted against appellants - Charges
framed - Pleaded not guilty - Appellants
submitted that learned Judge has come to
wrong conclusion that death was by
strangulation
and
not
suicide,
even
medical evidence does not support the
same. (Para 4, 8, 9, 15)

Held, the appellants cannot be held guilty
for offence u/s 302 IPC, as father-in-law
was not at place of offence and husband
does private job and had gone for job,
mentioned in St.ment recorded u/s 313
Cr.P.C., disbelieved by trial Judge - All
witnesses
turned
hostile
-
Incident
occurred in home but presence of accused
not proved - Death was not premeditated,
accused had no intention to cause death
of deceased, injuries were sufficient in
ordinary course of nature to have caused
death, it was suicidal death, accused had
not committed murder of deceased. (Para
24, 25)

Appeals allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. There may be instances where the
person who falls within the purview of
section 125 Cr.P.C. as being one who has
been neglected or refused maintenance
during certain period of time. There may be
some instances where a person, is for the
time being able to maintain himself or
herself looses her/his resources because of
changed circumstances. In such cases a
fresh right to claim maintenance may
accrue. Legally the liability to maintain
under section 125 Cr.P.C. is continuing
one. In my view, when there is a change in
circumstances entitling a person to be a
claimant as per provisions of section- 125
Cr.P.C., he or she can very well apply for
maintenance.
If
such
an
option
is
foreclosed, it shall frustrate the very
purpose of section- 125 Cr.P.C. I do not
find any good ground to interfere in the
order of the trial court or of the revisional
court in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this
court.

12. Hence, this writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 600
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 6481 of 2016
And
Criminal Appeal No. 6230 of 2016

Ankit ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, Sri Rajiv Lochan
Shukla, Sri Gautam, Sri Jitendra Rana

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 299, 302 r/w 34 - Punishment for
murder - Life imprisonment - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154,
161 - Appeal against conviction - Chain of
circumstantial evidence missing - Benefit
of doubt - Allegations against appellants
that they were causing mental torture to
deceased and she had quarrel with her
husband on date of incident, committed
suicide - After investigation charge-sheet
submitted against appellants - Charges
framed - Pleaded not guilty - Appellants
submitted that learned Judge has come to
wrong conclusion that death was by
strangulation
and
not
suicide,
even
medical evidence does not support the
same. (Para 4, 8, 9, 15)

Held, the appellants cannot be held guilty
for offence u/s 302 IPC, as father-in-law
was not at place of offence and husband
does private job and had gone for job,
mentioned in St.ment recorded u/s 313
Cr.P.C., disbelieved by trial Judge - All
witnesses
turned
hostile
-
Incident
occurred in home but presence of accused
not proved - Death was not premeditated,
accused had no intention to cause death
of deceased, injuries were sufficient in
ordinary course of nature to have caused
death, it was suicidal death, accused had
not committed murder of deceased. (Para
24, 25)

Appeals allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Subrahmanyam Vs St. of Tamil Nadu & ors.,
2010 (1) UPCRR page 21

2. G. Parshwanath Vs St. of Karn.; AIR 2010 SC
2914
7 All. Ankit Vs. State of U.P.
601
3. Jagdish Vs St. of M.P., 2009 (67) ACC 295
(SC)

4. Ujjagar Singh Vs St. of Pun., AIR 2008 SC
(SUPP) 190

5. Tomaso Bruno & anr. Vs St. of U.P., 2015 (1)
JT 389

6. Riyazuddin @ Raju & anr. Vs St. of U.P.,
Criminal Appeal No.911 of 2012, decided on
2.8.2022

7. Anil Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Appeal No.703 of
2017, decided on 8.12.2022

8. Santosh Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Appeal
No.5657 of 2011, decided on 22.2.2021

9. Tukaram and Ors Vs St. of Mah., reported in
(2011) 4 SCC 250

10. B.N. Kavatakar & anr. Vs St. of Karn.,
reported in 1994 SUPP (1) SCC 304

11. Sabitri Samantaray Vs St. of Odisha, AIR
2022 SC 2591, (Para 18, 19)

12. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah.,
(1984) 4 SCC 116

13. Mohd. Giasuddin Vs St. of A.P. AIR 1977 SC
1926

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad, J. )

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
Vikas Goswami, learned A.G.A. for the
state.

2. Both these appeals challenge the
judgment and order dated 17.11.2016
passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast
Track Court No.1, Meerut, in Sessions
Trial No.836 of 2015 (State vs. Ankit and
another) arising out of Case Crime No.145
of 2015, Police Station - Parikshitgarh,
District - Meerut.

3. Both the accused, who are father
and son, have been convicted under Section
302 read with 34 of I.P. Code pursuant to
registration of Case Crime No.145 of 2015.
The learned trial Judge committed the case
to the court of Sessions, being numbered as
836 of 2015. Both the accused Ankit and
Harnam
Singh
were
held
guilty
of
commission of offence under Section 302
IPC read with section 34 and have been
sentenced to the life imprisonment and Rs.
15,000/- fine and in default 6 months of
imprisonment.

4. The genesis of the case started with
an incident which happened on 23.4.2015
wherein the sister of the first informant,
who was married on 19.2.2012 to Ankit
Kumar S/o Harnam Singh and as her
husband and father-in-law were harassing
causing mental torture to the deceased, she
committed suicide at about 3:30 p.m. on
23.4.2015. This was the first information
given to the police authority.

5. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that
one Dhanraj S/o Amichand, who also
resides in the vicinity of the accused, had
conveyed that on the date of incident, the
deceased had quarrelled with the appellant
herein. On this information, a case under
Section 306 of I.P. Code was registered.
The investigation was put into motion by
one Chandvir, who was the police officer.
The investigating authority went to the site,
made the site plan and recorded the
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but at
the end of the investigation lodged an
F.I.R. under Section 302 of I.P. Code.

6. The accused were summoned by
the Magistrate and after completing the
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
formality for committing the case to the
court of Session, the matter was committed
to the court of Session.

7. The accused Ankit was in custody
on being summoned by the court of
Session, were presented before learned
Sessions Court. Both the accused pleaded
not guilty and they wanted to be tried.

8. The police after recording the
statements of several witnesses filed
charge-sheet against both the accused
persons. Being summoned the accused
were committed to the court of Sessions as
the offences for which the accused were
charged were exclusively triable by the
court of Sessions. It is not the case of
prosecution that death is a murder.

9. The charges were framed for
commission of the offence under Section
302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 against
both the accused persons, which was
denied by them. They pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.

10. The trial started and the
prosecution examined a total of 10
witnesses, who are as follows:

1
Pramod Kumar
PW1
2
Parvita
PW2
3
Om
PW3
4
Dhan Raj Singh
PW4
5
Shyam Veer Singh
PW5
6
Rakesh Kumar Tyagi
PW6
7
Naresh Kumar
PW7
8
Dr. Pankaj Sharma
PW8
9
Netra Pal Singh
PW9
10
Girish Verma
PW10

11. In support of the oral evidence
following documents were filed:

1
Written
Report
and
Recovery
Memo
of
Dupatta.
Ex.Ka.1
2
Charge-sheet
Ex.Ka.2
3
Panchayatnama
Ex.Ka.3
4
P.M. Report
Ex.Ka.10
5
F.I.R.
Ex.Ka.13

12. The prosecution examined several
witnesses in support of the prosecution case
so as to bring home the charge with which
both the accused were charged. The
evidence of PW1-Pramod Kumar in his
oral testimony accepted the fact that his
sister - deceased was married on 19.2.2012
with the accused Ankit and his elder sister
was married with Mohit (elder brother) and
Harnam and Mohit is son of Harnam but as
far as the question of quarrelling and
causing torture to his sister are concerned,
he did not support the prosecution.
Thereafter, in his oral testimony, he has
deposed that his elder sister Parmita has
stated that Arvita had committed suicide by
hanging herself. He feigned ignorance
whether in-laws of the sister were harassing
her and that was the cause of her
committing suicide. He has accepted that
the F.I.R. was lodged by him. However,
even in the cross-examination, he has not
deposed anything except that his sister
committed suicide. Similar version is given
by elder sister Parmita, who again opined
that Harnam was her father-in-law and
Ankit was her brother-in-law. Arvita -
deceased, according to this witness, was
school teacher. She thereafter has not
7 All. Ankit Vs. State of U.P.
603
supported the prosecution witness. She has
denied the circumstances about quarrel and
the factum that deceased was beaten by her
father-in-law.
Even
in
the
crossexamination by the learned Counsel for
State, she has denied the fact that Harnam
and Ankit had done her to death. Onkar -
PW3 has also deposed in similar line and
was declared hostile. Dheeraj Singh - PW4
has not supported the prosecution case and
has also been declared hostile. The Police
Officer-PW5-Shyam
Veer
Singh
has
accepted that it was he who had filed the
charge-sheet.

13. The conviction is solely based on
the evidence of Dr. Pankaj Sharma - PW8,
who had performed the post-mortem of the
dead-body has opined:-

"इस साक्षी ने अपनी जिरह में यह भी कथन जकया है
जक िब कोई व्यजि गले में कपडा डालकर आत्म हत्या करता है तो
उस दशा में भी उस व्यजि का सााँस घुटता है मृजतका के कपडे सही
सलामत थे फटे नहीं थ। इस बारे में चोट अपने आप आयी है या
जकसी के द्वारा चोट काररत की गयी है कोई राय नहीं दी िा सकती
है । "

14. The moot question now arises can
the Court rely on the statement made under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. of witnesses even if
that is done, the F.I.R. nor any statement
under Section 161 CPC state that the death
was
caused
by
the
accused
by
strangulation:

" जचजकत्सीय साक्ष्य शव जवच्छेदन ररपोटट प्रदशट क१० में जचजकत्सक द्वारा मृजतका अरजवता के शरीर में आयी एंटी
मोटेम इंिरी में, "Ligature mark 40 c.m. long & 2
c.m. चौड़ाई all round neck 3 c.m. below Rt.
ear, 6 c.m. below Lt. ear 1 c.m. below hair
line back, 6 c.m. below chin & 7 c.m.
above sternal notch mark situated above the
thyroid cartilage between Larynx & chin &
directed obliquely upwards base of the
mark is groove, raddish margin becomes
dry, hard & parchment live skin."

शव जवच्छेदन आख्या में मृत्यु का कारण death
due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation
(anti mortem) दशाटया गया है। "

15. It is submitted by the Counsel for
the appellant that the learned Judge has
come to a wrong conclusion that death was
by strangulation even if that was so there
are several missing links in the chain
leading to the said conclusion. The medical
evidence also does not state about the same
rather the learned Judge has based his
finding
on
surmises
that
it
was
strangulation by causing death and not
suicide. Learned Judge has relied on
Subrahmanyam Vs. State of Tamilnadu
and others, 2010 (1) UPCRR page 21, to
come to this conclusion but the said
conclusion is bad on facts.

16. It is further submitted by learned
Counsel for appellant that the judgment
relied by the learned Judge could not have
been applied to the facts of this case where
the medical evidence shows that the doctor
performing postmortem did not opine that
it was not suicide but murder. The finding
that it was not a case of suicide or murder,
the learned Judge opined as follows:-

"It is true that in a case of
circumstantial evidence motive does have
extreme significance but to say that in the
absence of motive, the conviction based on
circumstantial
evidence
cannot,
in
principle, be made is not correct. Motive
provides foundational material - Absence
of motive - Not of much consequence
when chain of proved circumstances is
complete. [G. Parshwanath v. State of
Karnataka; AIR 2010 SC 2914, Jagdish vs.
State of M.P., 2009 (67) ACC 295 (SC),
604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2008
SC (SUPP) 190] "

This finding according to learned
Counsel for appellants is perverse finding
and the circumstances narrated to hold
chain is complete are not proved.

17. The learned Counsel for the
appellant has relied on the following
decisions:-

(i) Tomaso Bruno and another
Vs. State of U.P., 2015 (1) JT 389;

(ii) Riyazuddin @ Raju and
another Vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal
No.911 of 2012, decided on 2.8.2022;

(iii) Anil Vs. State of U.P.,
Criminal Appeal No.703 of 2017, decided
on 8.12.2022;

(iv) Santosh Vs. State of U.P.,
Criminal Appeal No.5657 of 2011, decided
on 22.2.2021;

18. It is submitted that the chain of
circumstantial evidence as held to be
completed by the learned Judge is not
complete. The judgment cannot stand the
scrutiny of this Court in view of the
judgment in Riyazuddin @ Raju and
another Vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal
No.911 of 2012, decided on 2.8.2022 and
Anil Vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal
No.703 of 2017, decided on 8.12.2022, can
be made applicable and the onus to prove
that the accused were guilty has to be
proved by prosecution which has not been
discharged by prosecution.

19. Learned A.G.A. for the state has
vehemently submitted that facts of this case
will not permit the Court to take a different
view in this matter and has submitted that
none of the judgments relied by the
accused-appellant will apply to the facts of
this case.

20. Considering the evidence of the
witnesses and also considering the medical
evidence including post mortem report,
there is no doubt left in our mind that it was
homicidal death.

21. However, the question which falls
for our consideration is whether, on
reappraisal of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the conviction of
the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. of
the Indian Penal Code should be upheld or
the conviction deserves to be converted
under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the
Indian Penal Code or any other view is
possible. The reason for considering the
case from this angle is as in F.I.R. it is
stated that the deceased had a quarrel with
the accused and then news of her death
came. Though F.I.R. under Section 154
Cr.P. Code is not proved, we consider the
matter from that angle from the lens of the
learned trial Judge, who has held the chain
to be complete. It would be relevant to refer
Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code,
which read as under:

"299.
Culpable
homicide:
Whoever causes death by doing an act with
the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, or with the knowledge
that he is likely by such act to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide."

22. The academic distinction between
'murder' and 'culpable homicide not
amounting to murder' has always vexed the
Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts
losing sight of the true scope and meaning
7 All. Ankit Vs. State of U.P.
605
of the terms used by the legislature in these
sections, allow themselves to be drawn into
minute abstractions. The safest way of
approach
to
the
interpretation
and
application of these provisions seems to be
to keep in focus the keywords used in the
various clauses of Section 299 and 300 of
I.P.Code. The following comparative table
will be helpful in appreciating the points of
distinction between the two offences.

Section 299
Section 300
A
person
commits
culpable
homicide if the
act by which the
death is caused
is done-
Subject
to
certain
exceptions
culpable
homicide is murder if
the act by which the
death is caused is done.

INTENTION

(a)
with
the
intention
of
causing death; or
(1) with the intention of
causing death; or
(b)
with
the
intention
of
causing
such
bodily injury as
is
likely
to
cause death; or
(2) with the intention of
causing
such
bodily
injury as the offender
knows to be likely to
cause the death of the
person to whom the
harm is caused;
KNOWLEDGE
KNOWLEDGE
(c)
with
the
knowledge that
the act is likely
to cause death.
(4) with the knowledge
that
the
act
is
so
immediately dangerous
that it must in all
probability cause death
or such bodily injury as
is likely to cause death,
and without any excuse
for incurring the risk of
causing death or such
injury as is mentioned
above.

23. On overall scrutiny of the facts
and circumstances of the present case
coupled with the opinion of the Medical
Officer and considering the principle laid
down by the Apex Court in the Case of
Tukaram
and
Ors
Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 4 SCC
250 and in the case of B.N. Kavatakar
and Another Vs. State of Karnataka,
reported in 1994 SUPP (1) SCC 304, we
are of the considered opinion that the
offence would not be one punishable under
Section 304 part-I of the IPC.

24. If the case does not fall under
Section 304 (I) IPC whether conviction of
both accused with aid of section 302 IPC is
made out or not requires to be sifted from
judgment of trial court and evidence before
both the courts. The accused cannot be held
guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC,
the reasons that father-in-law Harnam
Singh was not at the place of offence. The
accused appellant - Ankit does a private
job and had gone for job which is a factor
mentioned in the statement recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., disbelieved by trial
Judge. Only on the basis of ligature mark
can it be said that the accused, who have
caused her death? The learned Judge has
come to the conclusion that death was by
strangulation. All the witnesses have turned
hostile. Just because the incident occurred
in the house, can it be said that
circumstantial chain is complete. It is
nobody's case that the appellant - accused
were in the house. Just because no witness
has been examined, cant it be held that
Ankit was not at Meerut rather no witness
has opined that Ankit was at home. This is
a
missing
link
in
the
chain.
The
606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstantial chain is not complete and it
cannot be said that both the accused were
having a common intention to do away
with the deceased. Just because the incident
occurred in the home but presence of
accused has not been proved and, therefore,
invoking section 106 of Evidence Act,
1872 and applying the judgment of the
Apex Court in Subrahmanyam Vs. State of
Tamilnadu and others, 2010 (1) UPCRR
page 21, it cannot be held to be proved that
the accused were authors of death of
deceased.

25. From the upshot of the aforesaid
discussions, it appears that the death was
not caused by the accused. The death was
not premeditated, accused had no intention
to cause death of deceased, the injuries
were though sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to have caused death but it
was suicidal death, accused is not proved to
have committed the murder of deceased.

26. The Apex Court in Sabitri
Samantaray vs. State of Odisha, AIR 2022
SC 2591 has also observed as under:

"18.
Section
106
of
the
Evidence Act postulates that the burden
of proving things which are within the
special knowledge of an individual is on
that individual. Although the Section in
no way exonerates the prosecution from
discharging its burden of proof beyond
reasonable doubt, it merely prescribes
that when an individual has done an
act, with an intention other than that
which the circumstances indicate, the
onus of proving that specific intention
falls onto the individual and not on the
prosecution. If the accused had a
different intention than the facts are
specially within his knowledge which he
must prove.

19. Thus, although Section 106 is
in no way aimed at relieving the
prosecution from its burden to establish the
guilt of an accused, it applies to cases
where chain of events has been successfully
established by the prosecution, from which
a reasonable inference is made out against
the accused. Moreover, in a case based on
circumstantial
evidence,
whenever
an
incriminating question is posed to the
accused and he or she either evades
response, or offers a response which is not
true, then such a response in itself becomes
an additional link in the chain of events.
[See Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681]"

27. It is more than settled principle of
law that if two views are possible, the
benefit shall always go to the accused. It
will be apposite to refer to the following
observations of Hon'ble the Apex Court in
the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.
State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116:-

"163. We then pass on to another
important point which seems to have been
completely missed by the High Court. It is
well settled that where on the evidence two
possibilities are available or open, one
which goes in favour of the prosecution and
the other which benefits an accused, the
accused is undoubtedly entitled to the
benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of
Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808, this
Court made the following observations :
[SCC para 25, p. 820 : SCC (Cri) p. 1060]

Another golden thread which
runs through the web of the administration
of justice in criminal cases, is that if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced
in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the
view which is favourable to the accused
7 All. Ankit Vs. State of U.P.
607
should be adopted. This principle has a
special relevance in cases wherein the guilt
of the accused is sought to be established
by circumstantial evidence."

The accused Ankit is in jail.
Since more than 9 years, the case under
Section 306 IPC is also not proved.

28. In Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State
of AP, [AIR 1977 SC 1926], explaining
rehabilitary & reformative aspects in
sentencing it has been observed by the
Supreme Court:

"Crime
is
a
pathological
aberration. The criminal can ordinarily be
redeemed and the state has to rehabilitate
rather than avenge. The sub-culture that
leads to ante-social behaviour has to be
countered not by undue cruelty but by
reculturization. Therefore, the focus of
interest in penology in the individual and
the goal is salvaging him for the society.
The infliction of harsh and savage
punishment is thus a relic of past and
regressive times. The human today vies
sentencing as a process of reshaping a
person
who
has
deteriorated
into
criminality and the modern community
has a primary stake in the rehabilitation
of the offender as a means of a social
defence. Hence a therapeutic, rather than
an 'in terrorem' outlook should prevail in
our
criminal
courts,
since
brutal
incarceration
of
the
person
merely
produces laceration of his mind. If you
are to punish a man retributively, you
must injure him. If you are to reform him,
you must improve him and, men are not
improved by injuries."

29. Keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case and also
keeping in view criminal jurisprudence in
our country which is reformative and
corrective and not retributive, this Court
considers that no accused person is
incapable
of
being
reformed
and
therefore, all measures should be applied
to
give
them
an
opportunity
of
reformation in order to bring them in the
social stream.

30.

Having
considered
the
submission of medical evidence orally as
well as the post-mortem report has been
wrongly interpreted by the court below in
coming to the conclusion that it was the
accused Ankit and his father, who had
done the deceased to death.

31. Accordingly, both the appeals
are allowed. Both the accused are
acquitted of all the charges. The accused
Ankit be set free forthwith by giving
benefit of doubt if not wanted in any
other case. Harnam Singh being enlarged
on bail, need not to surrender. Fine if
paid, be refunded to appellants. Record
and proceedings be sent back to the Court
below forthwith.

32. The Court had requested the
High Court Legal Service Committee/had
requested Shri Ajay kumar Mishra to act
as Amicus Curiae in the matter of
Harnam Singh which he had accepted.
This Court is thankful for that.

33. A copy of this order be sent to
the jail authorities for following this
order and doing the needful.

34 . We are thankful to Sri Ajay
Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
appellants in both the appeals and
learned A.G.A., for ably assisting the
Court.
----------
608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 7 ILRA 608
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 375 of 2023

Rameshwari ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Arvind Kumar Dixit

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, Sri
Brijesh Kumar Srivastava

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision , Sections 151, 107 and 116
Cr.P.C. , Section 156(3) - magistrate
empowered under section 190 may
order investigation - Magistrate must
act judiciously and cautiously when
interpreting applications under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. - as failure to apply their
judicial mind could result in failure to
register
a
case
-

disclosure
of
cognizable
offense
should
not
be
interpreted
as
mere
replication
of
words or facts - court should look for
substance in allegations and existence
of life in assertions, not just relying on
legal terminology. (Para - 7)

Complainant/first
informant
filed
an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. -
rejected - allegation - minor daughters
intercepted by 3 persons with malafide
intention and were molested - applicant tried
to lodge an FIR - police did not take any
action - sent an application to S.S.P. - no
action taken till now - Special Judge
arbitrarily passed order without considering
facts - particularly in para no. 2 - which
appears incomplete. (Para - 3)
HELD:-
Court
applied
judicial
discretion
correctly. Incomplete sentence in para no. 2 of
order appears a typing mistake, which does not
impact the matter's merits. No sufficient ground
for intervention in order. (Para -9,10)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

Aleque Padamsee Vs U.O.I., 2007 (3) ILR 469

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Dixit,
learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Brijesh
Kumar
Srivastava,
Advocate
holding brief for Sri Rajendra Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent nos. 2 to 6 and Sri O.P. Mishra,
learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been
filed
on
behalf
of
the
revisionist
challenging the order dated 09.01.2023
passed
by
Special
Judge,
(POCSO
Act)/Additional District and Session Judge,
Firozabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1910
of 2022 (Rameshwari vs. Rabul and others)
rejecting the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C.

3. The relevant facts are as below:-

The
complainant/the
first
informant Rameshwari filed an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. naming 5
persons therein with the allegation that her
minor daughters were intercepted by 3
persons with malafide intention and were
molested; when they protested, all the 3
persons
namely,
Rabul,
Dinesh
and
Kuldeep ran away; the same evening the
applicant i.e. the mother of the victims
complained to mother of Dinesh but they
began abusing them; Kalicharan exhorted