# Aviral Singh & Anr. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 535
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2952 of 2019
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aviral-singh-anr-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-44814
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Cr.P.C., 1973 - Section 397/401 and
Section 227 - Discharge - Requirement
at stage of Section 227 & 228 Cr.PC. -
Consideration of the "record of the case"
and hearing the parties- Ground of
Presumption is enough to frame the
Charge - Satisfaction of the court - may
even be weaker than prima-facie case -
At the stage of framing of charge, strong
suspicion and not proof is sufficientQuestions
of
facts
are
matters
of
evidence which can only be appreciated
during trial. (Para 9,11,12,13 &14)

On the basis of the allegation made by the
victim against the accused there arises grave
suspicion in respect of the victim having been
attempted to be raped as was stated by her in
her statement given under Section 164 Cr. P.C.
and it is also true that the trial court was not
required to make a roving enquiry regarding
commission of the offence.

The arguments which have been raised before
the trial court relate to the factual aspect of
the case, finding where on would be possible
only after trial is conducted by adducing
evidence of both the sides and its appreciation
is made.

The court is required to consider the "record of
the case" and the documents submitted
therewith and, after hearing the parties may
either discharge the accused or where it
appears to the court and in its opinion there is
ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence, it shall frame the
charge. The satisfaction of the court in relation
to the existence of constituents of an offence
and the facts leading to that offence is a sine
qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It
may even be weaker than prima-facie case. At
the initial stage of framing of charge, the court
is concerned not with proof but with a strong
suspicion that the accused has committed an
offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him
guilty.
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Framing of charge is an exercise of jurisdiction
by the trial court in terms of Section 228 Cr.
P.C., unless the accused is discharged under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. Under both the sections
227 and 228 Cr.P.C., the court is required to
consider the "record of the case" and the
documents submitted therewith and, after
hearing the parties, may either discharge the
accused or where it appears to the court and
in its opinion there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence, it
shall frame the charge. To say that at this
stage of framing of charge, the court should
form an opinion that the accused is certainly
guilty of committing an offence, is an
approach which is impermissible in terms of
Section 228 Cr. P.C.

Framing of charge is a kind of tentative view
that the trial court forms in terms of Section
228 which is subject to final culmination of the
proceedings.

No infirmity in the impugned order because
the fact as to whether the accused/revisionist
actually tried to molest the victim/attempted
to commit rape upon her,/had abused and
beaten her as has been stated by the victim in
her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. as
well as, as has been stated by her in F.I.R., is
a subject matter of evidence because no
opinion can be given on these aspects till both
the parties have adduced evidence before trial
court. Revision accordingly dismissed.

Criminal Revision dismissed (E-3)

Case law relied upon/discussed: -

## Text

2 All. Aviral Singh & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
535
ensure that justice is done to the society
by bringing to book all those guilty of an
offence. One of the aims and purposes of
the Criminal Justice System is to maintain
social order. It is necessary in that context
to ensure that no one who appears to be
guilty escapes a proper trial in relation to
that guilt. There is also a duty to render
justice to the victim of the offence. It is in
recognition of this that the Code has
specifically conferred a power in the court
to proceed against others not arrayed as
accused in the circumstances set out by
this Section. It is a salutary power
enabling the discharge of a court's
obligation to the society to bring to book
all those guilty of a crime.

20. In the light of aforesaid, the present
revision is bereft of merit. The impugned
order passed by trial judge is perfectly
justified
and
well
within
the
guidelines/parameters
laid
down
by
Constitution Bench decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Hardeep Singh's case.

21. The revision is accordingly,
dismissed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 535

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J

Criminal Revision No. 2952 of 2019

Aviral Singh & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Gopal Misra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Cr.P.C., 1973 - Section 397/401 and
Section 227 - Discharge - Requirement
at stage of Section 227 & 228 Cr.PC. -
Consideration of the "record of the case"
and hearing the parties- Ground of
Presumption is enough to frame the
Charge - Satisfaction of the court - may
even be weaker than prima-facie case -
At the stage of framing of charge, strong
suspicion and not proof is sufficientQuestions
of
facts
are
matters
of
evidence which can only be appreciated
during trial. (Para 9,11,12,13 &14)

On the basis of the allegation made by the
victim against the accused there arises grave
suspicion in respect of the victim having been
attempted to be raped as was stated by her in
her statement given under Section 164 Cr. P.C.
and it is also true that the trial court was not
required to make a roving enquiry regarding
commission of the offence.

The arguments which have been raised before
the trial court relate to the factual aspect of
the case, finding where on would be possible
only after trial is conducted by adducing
evidence of both the sides and its appreciation
is made.

The court is required to consider the "record of
the case" and the documents submitted
therewith and, after hearing the parties may
either discharge the accused or where it
appears to the court and in its opinion there is
ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence, it shall frame the
charge. The satisfaction of the court in relation
to the existence of constituents of an offence
and the facts leading to that offence is a sine
qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It
may even be weaker than prima-facie case. At
the initial stage of framing of charge, the court
is concerned not with proof but with a strong
suspicion that the accused has committed an
offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him
guilty.
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Framing of charge is an exercise of jurisdiction
by the trial court in terms of Section 228 Cr.
P.C., unless the accused is discharged under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. Under both the sections
227 and 228 Cr.P.C., the court is required to
consider the "record of the case" and the
documents submitted therewith and, after
hearing the parties, may either discharge the
accused or where it appears to the court and
in its opinion there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence, it
shall frame the charge. To say that at this
stage of framing of charge, the court should
form an opinion that the accused is certainly
guilty of committing an offence, is an
approach which is impermissible in terms of
Section 228 Cr. P.C.

Framing of charge is a kind of tentative view
that the trial court forms in terms of Section
228 which is subject to final culmination of the
proceedings.

No infirmity in the impugned order because
the fact as to whether the accused/revisionist
actually tried to molest the victim/attempted
to commit rape upon her,/had abused and
beaten her as has been stated by the victim in
her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. as
well as, as has been stated by her in F.I.R., is
a subject matter of evidence because no
opinion can be given on these aspects till both
the parties have adduced evidence before trial
court. Revision accordingly dismissed.

Criminal Revision dismissed (E-3)

Case law relied upon/discussed: -

1. St. of Har. & ors. Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors.
1992 AIR 604 SC.

2. Vikram Jauhar Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2019
lawsuit (SC) 1123

3. Dilawar Babu Vs St. of Mah. 2002 lawsuit (SC) 12

4. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander & anr.
(2012) 9 SCC460

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri Gopal Mishra, learned
counsel for the revisionists, Sri Attreya
Dutt Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing
for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been
preferred by the revisionists against the
judgment and order dated 20.07.2019
passed by Additional District & Sessions
Judge, VI, Gautam Buddha Nagar in
Sessions Trial No. 431 of 2018 (State Vs.
Aviral & Others) whereby application 8kha under section 227 Cr.P.C. has been
rejected.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel
for the revisionist that no offence under
section 376 IPC as well as of other
sections are made out and the Learned
trial court has failed to appreciate the fact
that opposite party no. 2 herself had come
to the house of the revisionist to stay there
and upon being refused to allow her to
stay, she would refuse to leave. It has also
not been appreciated that in her statement
under sections 164 Cr. P.C. she herself
has not made any statement that she was
raped by the accused revisionist and yet
Section 376 IPC has been imposed. The
prosecution story would reveal that on the
one hand the opposite party no. 2 is
claiming that she herself went to reside
with revisionist no. 1 who was known to
her while on the other in the F.I.R. she has
not even named the revisionist nos. 1 and
2. In FIR she has clearly stated that she
had gone to stay with the revisionist no. 1
after taking consent of her parents but the
investigating
officer
has
not
even
recorded the statement of her parents.
There are serious contradictions in the
F.I.R. and the statement made by the
victim under sections 161 and 164 Cr.
P.C.. The opposite party no. 2 has made a
statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. that
2 All. Aviral Singh & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
537
she had called the police at 100 number
from railway station New Delhi, but no
information about the same was given by
her to the investigating officer nor did the
investigating officer collect any evidence
in this regard during entire investigation.
The malafide of the opposite party no. 2
would be clear from the fact that in the
F.I.R. she has given her address as that of
the
revisionist
no.
1.
The
present
prosecution has been initiated only in order
to blackmail the revisionist no. 1 and his
family which would be apparent from the
fact that when the real Bua and real brother
of the opposite party no. 2 were residing in
Delhi/NCR, even then she preferred to stay
in the house of revisionist no. 1 of her own
free will with some oblique motives to
implicate the revisionists. It is the admitted
case of the opposite party no. 2 that
revisionist no. 1 had requested the opposite
party no. 2 to go out from his house but she
refused. The medical examination report
does not substantiate any offence under
section 376 IPC. Therefore it is argued that
the trial court has committed grave error in
rejecting the discharge application by
forcing the revisionist to face the trial. The
impugned order is a cryptic one which
does not disclose any reasons. As far as
revisionist no. 2 is concerned he was
neither relative of opposite party no. 2 nor
had he any connection in the present
matter and was residing separate in his
hostel and was pursuing studies. He has
been solely implicated in this false case
when opposite party no. 2 refused to go
away from the house of the revisionist no.
1, the revisionist no. 2 was also called
upon by the revisionist no. 1 for moral
support only. The impugned order is illegal
perverse and against the provisions of law
as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in various cases and the same
deserves to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the
revisionists has taken the court through
the F.I.R. wherein it is recorded by
opposite party no. 2 that she was a
resident of District Chandauli and was
doing B.Tec. from Lucknow. She had
come to the house of his acquaintance i.e.
revisionist no. 1, regarding which she had
also told her parents and they permitted
her to do so for doing training. The said
revisionist no. 1 had also talked to her
parents but about 2 days ago he started
threatening her. There was another boy
i.e. revisionist no. 2, who was son of her
Bua and both of them together had beaten
her and told her to leave their house but
she refused, whereon she was threatened.
The reason behind her being expelled was
that she should leave the house before
arrival of their parents. They had taken
away her phone and was confined to a
room and in highly drunken condition
they came in her room and ill treated her
when she was alone and while defending
herself she received an abrasion as she
was tightly caught. The son of her Bua
tried to forcibly molest her, whereon she
screamed loudly, thereafter both of them
had closed her in a room and left from
there. She could not have done anything
there, therefore till the morning she
remained there and again both of them
came there in the morning and started
beating her and did a lot of things and
thereafter they had thrown out her
belongings and expelled her from the
house. She kept crying alone and had to
go out along with her belongings but after
having come out of the house she realized
that her phone was left there and
thereafter, leaving her belongings there
only, she went back to their house again,
then she was again beaten and her wallet
was snatched away. Thereafter she came
back from there and by Auto started
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
leaving for Parichauk, then both of them
came there from behind and had thrown
her wallet inside the Auto, when she
looked into it, she found that her phone
and the money and a golden chain kept in
the wallet were missing. She came to the
Delhi railway station and lodged the
complaint.

5. Thereafter the learned counsel for
the revisionist had taken the court through
her statement under sections 164 Cr. P.C.
in which she has stated that she had come
to the house of her Mausi last month. Her
aunt's house was in Greater Noida. She
knew revisionist no. 1/Aviral who was
son of sister of her aunt for last 5 - 6 years
as both of them were doing B.Tech from
Lucknow. She had told her home folks
that she was going to Noida for training
purpose and till she would get a job she
would stay in the house of her Mausi. Her
brother was also staying for last 2 months
in Noida where he had taken a room. She
had started living in the house of her
Mausi. She continued to enquire about
training which was to begin from
30/06/2017. Aviral told her that she
should come to his house. She declined,
then he stated that his parents were also to
come here yet she refused and stated that
first he should arrange her meeting with
his parents. On this, altercation followed
between them and Aviral went away.
With Aviral was also staying the son of
her Bua, Animesh. Both of them talked to
each other and came together in her room
in the night at about 12 - 1 AM in drunken
state. When she enquired as to what had
happened, they started abusing her and
gave her a ticket which was of 1st. They
would not stop and started ill treating her
and at that time she was alone. They
started using force against her and she
was beaten and an attempt to rape her was
also
made.
Sri
screamed
loudly,
whereafter both of them fled from there
closing the door, having taken away her
phone. She kept weeping because of fear
and again when in the morning both of
them came, they started abusing her. She
told them that she would leave but both of
them had thrown her belongings out,
whereafter she left the place after taking
her belongings. After having left the place
she realized that her phone was left there
only, to take which she went back but the
same was not given and her purse was
also snatched away. Thereafter she
returned and engaged an Auto. The
accused came from behind and had
thrown her empty purse into the Auto,
whereafter she made a phone call at 100
number
and
thereafter
she
reached
Lucknow and got a report lodged at
Lucknow police station and also came to
meet SSP NOIDA .

6. After having taken the court
through the above statements it was
vehemently argued by the learned counsel
for the revisionists that the said statement
would suggest that there was no evidence
on record constituting an offence of rape
and that the accused revisionists have
been falsely implicated by the opposite
party no. 2 because it is very much clear
from the above statements that the
accused were consistently opposing her
stay in their house but the victim/opposite
party no. 2 was insisting upon staying
there despite the fact that her own brother
was staying in the same city which clearly
suggests that she has fabricated this false
story only to falsely implicate the
revisionists. No such occurrence has ever
happened. The revisionists are students of
engineering and come from decent family.
Therefore the impugned order dated
20/07/2019
rejecting
the
discharge
2 All. Aviral Singh & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
539
application and directing the accused to
appear before court for framing of charge,
be set aside.

7. The learned counsel for the
applicant by filing written argument has
placed reliance on Bhajan Lal's case and it
has been argued that the allegations made
in the F.I.R. and the statement under
sections 164 Cr. P.C. are absurd and
inherently improbable that no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. He has
placed reliance upon Vikram Jauhar vs
State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2019
lawsuit (SC) 1123, in which it is held that
while
considering
the
discharge
application, the court is required to
exercise its judicial mind to determine
whether a case for trial has been made out
or not. In this case the allegation was that
appellant with 2 or 3 other unknown
persons, one of whom was holding a
revolver, came to the complainant's house
and abused him in filthy language and
attempted to assault him and when some
neighbours arrived there, the appellant
and the other persons accompanying him
fled the spot. It was held that the
allegation taken on the face of it does not
satisfy the ingredients of Section 504 and
506 IPC as the intentional insult must be
of such a great degree that it should
provoke a person to break the public
peace or to commit any other offence. The
mere allegation that appellant came and
abused the complainant does not satisfy
the ingredients. In this case the allegation
was only that the appellant abused the
complainant, hence the ingredients of
Section 504 and 506 were not found made
out from the complaint filed by the
complainant and it was held that the
courts below committed error in rejecting
the application of discharge filed by the
Appellant.

8. The other case law relied upon by
the learned counsel the applicant is
Dilawar Babu vs State of Maharastra,
2002 lawsuit (SC) 12, in which it is held
that even for the limited purpose of
framing charge the evidence can be sifted
to ascertain as to whether charge needs to
be framed and that charge can be famed
even when the suspicion is grave enough.
Where the material placed before the
court discloses grave suspicion against the
accused which has not been properly
explained, the court will be fully justified
in framing the charge and to proceed with
the trial. By and large, if two views are
equally possible and judge is satisfied that
the evidence produced before him, gives
rise to some suspicion which was not
grave one, he will be fully justified to
discharge the accused. In exercising
jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the judge cannot
act merely as a post office or as a
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to
consider broad probabilities of the case,
the total effect of the evidence and the
documents produced before the court, but
should not make a roving enquiry into the
pros and cons of the matter and weigh the
evidence as if he was conducting trial.

9. I do not have any quarrel with the
above principle of law but even if the
above laid principles are applied in the
present case, I am convinced that on the
basis of the allegation made by the victim
against the accused there arises grave
suspicion in respect of the victim having
been attempted to be raped as was stated
by her in her statement given under
Section 164 Cr. P.C. and it is also true
that the trial court was not required to
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
make
a
roving
enquiry
regarding
commission of the offence. So far as the
inherent improbability of the statement of
the victim is concerned, it does not appear
to be improbable at all.

10. The AGA vehemently opposed
the quashing of the impugned order and
has argued that there is no infirmity in the
impugned order as there is sufficient
evidence on record to constitute an
offence under section 376 read with
Section 511 IPC apart from other sections
mentioned above and it is wrong to say
that the accused - revisionists were
summoned by the trial court to face trial
under sections 376 IPC, rather they been
summoned to face trial under sections 376
read with Section 511 IPC along with
other sections. The main emphasis was
laid by the Learned AGA on the statement
given by the victim that she was tried to
be thrown out of the house of the
revisionist only because their parents
were arriving and that it cannot be
ignored that the accused might have
molested the victim as she has stated that
she was tried to be raped by them. The
said statement cannot be disbelieved at
inceptional stage of the case/trial.

11. I have gone through the
impugned order. It is recorded in it that
after
registration
of
the
F.I.R.,
investigation was conducted and the
evidence
was
gathered
by
the
investigating officer, on the basis of
which charge sheet has been submitted
against the accused/ revisionists, upon
which cognizance has been taken by the
learned Magistrate. The present matter
relates to an effort having been made by
the
accused/revisionists
of
making
attempt to commit rape upon the opposite
party no. 2. The arguments which have
been raised before the trial court relate to
the factual aspect of the case, finding
where on would be possible only after
trial is conducted by adducing evidence of
both the sides and its appreciation is
made. The revisionists/accused would get
sufficient opportunity at the stage of
evidence to cross-examine the said
witness/opposite party no. 2 and also to
adduce evidence in defence and therefore
at this stage it cannot be held that no such
offence was committed and accordingly
the application 8 Kha was dismissed
which was moved for discharging the
accused/revisionist of charges which were
to be framed against them.

12. It would be pertinent to refer to
the position of law in respect of framing
of charge. In Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh
Chander
and
another,
(2012)
9
Supreme Court Cases 460, the Hon'ble
Apex court has laid down that the framing
of charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by
the trial court in terms of Section 228 Cr.
P.C., unless the accused is discharged
under Section 227 Cr.P.C.. Under both the
sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., the court is
required to consider the "record of the
case" and the documents submitted
therewith and, after hearing the parties,
may either discharge the accused or where
it appears to the court and in its opinion
there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence, it shall
frame the charge. Once the facts and
ingredients of the Section concerned exist,
then the court would be right in
presuming that there is ground to proceed
against the accused and frame the charge
accordingly. This presumption is not a
presumption of
law
as
such.
The
satisfaction of the court in relation to the
existence of constituents of an offence
and the facts leading to that offence is a
2 All. Aviral Singh & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
541
sign quo non for exercise of such
jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than
prima-facie case. At the initial stage of
framing of charge, the court is concerned
not with proof but with a strong suspicion
that the accused has committed an
offence, which, if put to trial, could prove
him guilty. All that the court has to see is
that the material on record and the facts
would be compatible with the innocence
of the accused or not. The final test of
guilt is not to be applied at this stage.
There is a fine distinction between the
language of sections 227 and 228 Cr.
P.C.. Section 227 is the expression of a
definite opinion and judgment of the court
while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to
say that at this stage of framing of charge,
the court should form an opinion that the
accused is certainly guilty of committing
an offence, is an approach which is
impermissible in terms of Section 228 Cr.
P.C.. Framing of charge is the first major
step in a criminal trial where the courts
are expected to apply its mind to the
entire record and documents placed
before it. Taking cognizance of an offence
has
been
stated
to
necessitate
an
application of mind by the court but
framing of the charge is a major event
where the court considers the possibility
of discharging the accused of the offence
with which he has been charged or
requiring the accused to face trial. There
are different categories of cases where the
court may not proceed with the trial and
may discharge the accused or pass such
other orders as may be necessary keeping
in view the facts of a given case. In a
case, where considering the record of the
case and documents submitted before it,
the trial court finds that no offence is
made out and there is a legal bar to such
prosecution under the provisions of Cr.
P.C. or any other law for the time being in
force and there is a bar and there exists no
ground to proceed against the accused, the
court may discharge the accused. Framing
of charge is a kind of tentative view that
the trial court forms in terms of Section
228 which is subject to final culmination
of the proceedings. The legislature in its
wisdom has used the expression "there is
ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence". This has an
inbuilt element of presumption once the
ingredients of an offence with reference to
the allegations made are satisfied, the
court would not doubt the case of
prosecution
unduly
and
extend
its
jurisdiction to quash the charge in haste.
The meaning of the word "presumed"
means "to believe or accept upon probable
evidence", "to take as proved until
evidence to the contrary is forthcoming".
In other words, the truth of the matter has
to come out when the prosecution
evidence is led, the witnesses are
examined by the defence, incriminating
material and evidence is put to the
accused in terms of Section 313 Cr. P.C.
and then the accused is provided an
opportunity to lead defence if any. It is
only upon completion of such steps that
the trial concludes with the court forming
its
final
opinion
in
delivering
its
judgment.

13. If the above test in the present
case is applied as to whether the
impugned order is a defective one on the
anvil of law which has been cited above, I
come to the conclusion that there is no
infirmity in the impugned order because
the
fact
as
to
whether
the
accused/revisionist
actually
tried
to
molest the victim/attempted to commit
rape upon her,/had abused and beaten her
as has been stated by the victim in her
statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. as
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
well as, as has been stated by her in
F.I.R., is a subject matter of evidence
because no opinion can be given on these
aspects till both the parties have adduced
evidence before trial court. A perusal of
the charge- sheet would reveal that there
are as many as 8 witnesses whose
statements have been recorded by the
investigating officer in this case, out of
whom the attention is drawn by the
learned counsel for the revisionist to the
statement of the victim only under Section
164 Cr. P.C. as well as FIR which have
been cited above and not to any other
witness which include three witnesses of
fact and one Doctor apart from the formal
witnesses. The copies of the statements of
these witnesses have not been annexed
with the present revision, therefore this
court does not have opportunity to go
through those statements and form an
opinion as to whether there was no
evidence on record against the accused
revisionists
constituting
offence
as
mentioned above or not.

14. Accordingly I do not find any
force in the present revision which needs
to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 542

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3848 of 2015

Sanju Thakur ... Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, Sri Raj Kumar
Dhama

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Paritosh Shukla

A. Cr.P.C., 1973 - Section 319 - Application
filed by revisionist rejected - Contradictory
and vague statements - Not sufficient to
bring the person in the category of
offender-Interpretation
of
Statute-"any
relative of her husband" in Section 304-B
IPC- Evidence required to summon a
person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Should
be much better in comparison to what is
required at the time of framing of the
charge and the evidence should be such
that the court should be of the view that it
will certainly lead to the conviction of such
person who is being sought to be
summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. ( Para
12,13,14,15 & 16)

From the statement of all the witnesses and
the First Information Report it is clear that the
role of Ram Prakash was of only mediator in
settling the marriage of the deceased. No
allegation in First Information Report that Ram
Prakash is a relative of the accused persons,
but in the application under section 319, he
has been stated to be a relative of accused
person.

A penal statute should be strictly construed.
The expression "any relative of her husband"
occurring in Section 304-B IPC should be
limited to persons related by blood, marriage
or adoption.

PW-1 who is informant has said that Ram
Prakash is relative of the accused persons and
he said that if they give rupees five lakh, the
matter may come to an end and his daughter
may live comfortably. Similar statements have
been given by PW-2 and 3 also. Only on the
basis of this statement, the application under
section 319 Cr.P.C. has been given which is not
sufficient to involve Ramprakash in the crime
and cannot bring him in the category of