# Ashok Kumar & Anr. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 624
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3526 of 2022
- **Bench:** Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-anr-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50256
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325,
504 & 506 - Against summoning order -
Specific allegations against accused that
they along with other co-accused persons
armed
with
lathi,
danda
and
other
weapons assaulted the complainant & ors.
- Five persons received injuries - During
trial, prosecution moved application u/s
319 Cr.P.C. - Ground, that in FIR nine
persons were named while I.O. has
submitted charge-sheet only against five
accused persons - Under undue influence,
IO
has
exonerated
four
persons
-
Application
allowed
-
Contention
-
Opposite party want to settle criminal
matters,
revisionist
have
falsely
implicated - Held, both witnesses (P.W. 1
complainant) and (P.W. 2 injured witness)
have fully corroborated allegations of FIR
- Evidence of eye witness has greater
evidentiary
value,
unless
compelling
reasons
exist
his
St.ment
can't
be
discarded
-
St.ments
of
witnesses
recorded u/s 161, Cr.P.C. was not proper -
It was sketchy, has no details of incident -
To benefit accused, IO has recorded
St.ments at his own - Trial Court rightly
exercised
powers
-
No
illegality
in
impugned order. (Para 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. The criminal revision is allowed.
The impugned order dated 10.8.2022
passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.
No. 2, Azamgarh in S.T. No. 126 of 2018
whereby the application under section 319
Cr.P.C.
has
been
allowed
and
the
revisionists have been summoned to face
trial is hereby set-aside.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 624
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3526 of 2022

Ashok Kumar & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325,
504 & 506 - Against summoning order -
Specific allegations against accused that
they along with other co-accused persons
armed
with
lathi,
danda
and
other
weapons assaulted the complainant & ors.
- Five persons received injuries - During
trial, prosecution moved application u/s
319 Cr.P.C. - Ground, that in FIR nine
persons were named while I.O. has
submitted charge-sheet only against five
accused persons - Under undue influence,
IO
has
exonerated
four
persons
-
Application
allowed
-
Contention
-
Opposite party want to settle criminal
matters,
revisionist
have
falsely
implicated - Held, both witnesses (P.W. 1
complainant) and (P.W. 2 injured witness)
have fully corroborated allegations of FIR
- Evidence of eye witness has greater
evidentiary
value,
unless
compelling
reasons
exist
his
St.ment
can't
be
discarded
-
St.ments
of
witnesses
recorded u/s 161, Cr.P.C. was not proper -
It was sketchy, has no details of incident -
To benefit accused, IO has recorded
St.ments at his own - Trial Court rightly
exercised
powers
-
No
illegality
in
impugned order. (Para 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Pun., AIR 2014
Supreme Court page 1400, (Para 98 and 99)

2. St. of M.P. Vs Man Singh, (2003) 10 SCC 414

3. Abdul Sayeed Vs St. of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC
259

4. St. of U.P. Vs Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been
filed against the order dated 10.6.2022
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No. 10, Mathura in S.T. No. 396 of 2016,
under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325,
504 and 506 IPC (State Vs. Mahesh and
others) Case Crime No. 152 of 2015, P.S.
Chhata, District Mathura.

3. An FIR was lodged by O.P. No. 2
Smt. Taravati alleging therein that today on
23.4.2015 at about 7:00 a.m. Chetram S/o
her Jeth has gone to attend the call of
nature. When he was coming back then
near the house of Mahesh, Ashok, Ashiwin,
Ram Kishan, Mahesh, Bankey, Rajveer and
5 All. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
625
Yogesh holding lathi, danda and Farsa and
Har Dayal holding licensee gun and
Gajendra holding a country made pistol
met him. Chetram ran towards his house
and all the accused chased him and Har
Dayal opened fire with his licensee gun and
Gajendra fired with country made pistol.
Chetram narrowling escaped and entered
into his house and all the accused persons
also entered into the house and on the cries
and noise Ram Jeewan, Vijay, Km. Renu
and Shaym came to rescue him. All the
accused persons assaulted them with lathi,
danda and farsa causing them serious
injuries. Injured were medically examined.
After
investigation
charge-sheet
was
submitted only against Mahesh, Ram
Kishan, Rajveer, Bankey and Yogesh.
During course of trial two prosecution
witnesses Smt. Taravati P.W. 1 and Shyam
Sunder P.W. 2 were examined. An
application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was
moved by the prosecution and it was
alleged that in the FIR nine persons were
named while I.O. has submitted chargesheet only against five accused persons.
The I.O. under indue influence has
exonerated Ashok, Ashiwini, Har Dayal
and Gajendra while all the accused persons
have actively participated in the incident.
During trial P.W. 1 Smt. Taravati eye
witness and Shyam Sunder P.W. 2 injured
witness have been examined and they have
implicated the aforesaid accused also in the
incident. On the aforesaid ground it was
prayed that all the remaining accused
persons be also summoned to face trial.
The learned trial court after hearing the
parties by the impugned order dated
16.6.2022 has allowed the application and
summoned all the four accused persons
exonerated by the I.O.

4. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the revisionists that I.O. has
recorded the statements of complainant and
injured witnesses. They have not taken the
name of revisionists -accused. During
course of investigation it was found that
they have been falsely implicated and were
not involved in the incident. On the
aforesaid ground the I.O. exonerated them
and has not submitted charge-sheet against
them. The FIR has been lodged by the
complainant on false and fabricated facts
under the pressure of her wife and family
members because there is some dispute
between the parties. The revisionist nos. 1
and 2 are cousin. The husband of informant
and his family members want to settle all
the criminal matters and due to this reason
they have falsely implicated all the
revisionists. It is also contended that all the
revisionists were exonerated by the I.O. on
the basis of statements and evidence
collected during course of investigation but
same was not considered by the court
below.

5. Learned A.G.A. submitted that
revisionists are named in the FIR and there
are also allegations against them that they
have actively participated in the incident.
They assaulted the complainant and others.
Five persons have received injuries in this
incident. The statements recorded by I.O.
under section 161 Cr.P.C. is sketchy,
without details of the incident. It is further
contended that complainant and injured
witnesses examined during course of trial
have fully supported the prosecution
version and from their statements the
complicity of the revisionists-accused is
fully established. So there is no illegality in
the impugned summoning order.

6. The Apex Court in the case of
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR
2014 Supreme Court page 1400 has
prescribed
the
standard
of
evidence
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
required for exercising powers under
section 319 Cr.P.C. The relevant paras 98
and 99 are as follows:

"98. Power under Section 319,
Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised
sparingly and only in those cases where the
circumstances of the case so warrant. It is
not to be exercised because the Magistrate
or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that
some other person may also be guilty of
committing that offence. Only where strong
and cogent evidence occurs against a
person from the evidence led before the
court that such power should be exercised
and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

99. Thus, we hold that though
only a prima face case is to be established
from the evidence led before the court not
necessarily tested on the anvil of crossexamination, it requires much stronger
evidence than mere probability of his
complicity, The test that has to be applied
is one which is more than prima facie case
as exercised at the time of framing of
charge, but short of satisfaction to an
extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted,
would lead to conviction. In the absence of
such satisfaction, the court should refrain
from exercising power under Section 319,
Cr. P.C. In Section 319, Cr.P.C. the
purpose of providing if 'it appears from the
evidence that any person not being the
accused has committed any offence is clear
from the words "for which such person
could be tried together with the accused."
The words used are not 'for which such
person could be convicted'. There is,
therefore, no scope for the Court acting
under Section 319, Cr.P.C, to form any
opinion as to the guilt of the accused."

7. It is undisputed that revisionistsaccused are named in the FIR and there are
specific allegations against them that they
along with other co-accused persons armed
with lathi, danda and other weapons after
entering into the house of the complainant
assaulted the complainant and others. Five
persons have received injuries in this
incident. P.W. 1 Smt. Taravati is the
complainant while P.W. 2 Shyam Sunder is
the injured witness. Both the witnesses
have fully corroborated the allegations of
the FIR which shows the complicity of the
revisionists in the incident. The evidence of
an eye witness has greater evidentiary
value and unless compelling reasons exist
his statement is not to be discarded lightly.
The Apex Court in the cases of State of
M.P. Vs. Man Singh (2003) 10 SCC 414,
Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of M.P. (2010) 10
SCC 259 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.
Naresh (2011) 4 SCC 324 has laid-down
the aforesaid proposition of law.

8. The statements recorded under
section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses is not
proper. It is sketchy and has no details of
the incident. It reflects that the I.O. just to
benefit the accused has recorded the
statements at his own in highly improper
manner.

9. In the impugned order the
learned trial court has narrated the entire
facts, evidence and legal proposition and
after analyzing all the material on record
has recorded finding that there is
sufficient evidence on record to summon
the revisionists-accused. The evidence
on record fulfill the standard prescribed
for exercising powers under section 319
Cr.P.C. The learned trial court has
rightly exercised the powers and on the
basis of sufficient material has passed
the summoning order. There is no
illegality in the impugned summoning
order.
5 All. Bablu @ Dinesh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
627

10. The revision lacks merit and is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 627
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4176 of 2022

Bablu @ Dinesh Singh & Ors.
 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Anurag Vajpeyi, Sri Atharva Dixit, Sri
Aushim Luthra, Sri Manish Tiwari (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.,
Sri
Abhishek
Kumar,
Sri
Udai
Chandani

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149,
323/149, 504 & 506 - Against summoning
order - FIR was lodged against 16 named
and several unnamed persons, alleging
they attacked the complainant and his
companions with weapons causing serious
injuries - Charge-sheet submitted only
against six accused persons, exonerating
the revisionists-accused on the basis of
independent witnesses - Prosecution filed
application
u/s
319
Cr.P.C.
with
averments that co-accused are involved in
incident
but
they
are
not
tried
-
Application
allowed
-
Held,
specific
allegations against accused showing their
complicity in incident - One person has
died while several others (11 in number)
received
injuries
-
Complainant
corroborated allegations of FIR in his
St.ment
u/s
161,
Cr.P.C
-
Injured
witnesses
corroborated
St.ment
of
complainant - Three eye witnesses St.d
presence of revisionists-accused at place
of occurrence - St.ment of injured witness
should
be
given
due
weightage
in
comparison
to
St.ment
of
other
independent
eye
witnesses
-
Cogent
evidence in form of testimony of injured
witness - Trial court narrated entire facts,
analysed all materials - No illegality in
impugned order. (Para 2, 3, 8, 13)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Pun., AIR (1998) SC
3148

2. Brijendra Singh Vs St. of Raj., AIR (2019) SC
2839

3. Periya Sami Vs S. Nalla Samy, (2019) 4 SCC
342

4. Sagar Vs St. of U.P., (2022) 6 SCC 389

5. S. Mohd. Ispahani Vs Yogendra Chaudhary &
ors., (2017) 16 SCC page 226

6. Manjeet Singh Vs St. of Har. & ors., (2021) 0
AIR (SC) 4274

7. Kukhpal Singh Khaira Vs St. of Punjab
(Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2019 decided on
5.12.2022)

8. Sambhaji & ors. Vs St. of Maharashtra & anr.,
2008 Crl.L.J. 1123

9. Rajindra Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., AIR 2007
Supreme Court 2786

10. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punjab, AIR 2014
Supreme Court page 1400, (Para 98, 99)

11. Brijendra Singh & ors. Vs St. of Raj., (2017)
7 SCC page 706, (Para 13)

12. Rajesh and ors Vs St. of Har., (2019) 6 SCC
368

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain
Rizvi, J.)