# Nadeem Tarik Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1117
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4309 of 2022
- **Bench:** Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nadeem-tarik-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-49800
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law- Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504, 506 & 354 - The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections
161, 319 - As per FIR - Seven accused
persons armed with Lathi, Danda, country
made pistol entered into house of first
informant and started to assault and his
son causing them injuries -Accused also
torn
clothes
of
first
informant
and
threatened
her
with
death
-
After
investigation chargesheet was submitted
only against four persons - Application
was moved by prosecution to summon
other accused persons named in FIR on
ground that complainant is also an injured
witness - In her St.ment complainant has
supported allegations of FIR - Trial Court
has summoned revisionists to face trial -
Held, there are specific allegations against
accused
showing
their
complicity
in
incident - Evidence of an eye witness

## Text

4 All. Nadeem Tarik Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1117
as
well
as
complainant
have
fully
corroborated their presence at the spot and
that they have took part in the incident and
assaulted the injured causing her injuries.

9. 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
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 extra-ordinary
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."

10. The facts of this case are
distinguished from the case law of
Brijendra Singh and others Vs. State of
Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC page 706
because in that case the I.O. has collected
the plethora evidence about the alibi of the
accused while in this case there is no such
kind of evidence which can be used to
discredit the statement of injured witness.

11. The learned trial court has
narrated the entire facts and allegations
made in the application, the evidence
available on record and after being satisfied
that there is sufficient material on record
has passed the impugned summoning order.
The impugned summoning order is detailed
and reasoned one. There is no perversity or
illegality in the impugned summoning
order.

12. The revision is devoid of merit
and is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1117
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4309 of 2022

Nadeem Tarik ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Girish Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Mohd. Afzal

Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 216 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506 & 3(1) (v) - D.P
Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4 - Criminal
Revision - against, order impugned by
which
-
Trial
Court
has
rejected
application filed by accused U/s 216
Cr.P.C - Chargesheet was submitted
under aforesaid Sections - Charges
framed -Trial commenced - Whether
revision
is
maintainable
-

Held,
application
has
been
moved
for
alteration of charge U/s 216 Cr.P.C.
but its implication is discharge of
accused from charge of Section 315
IPC
-
It
is
a
matter
of
final
adjudication which is to be analyzed in
view of entire evidence available on
record and not on the basis of any
peace-meal evidence - There is no
sufficient ground to drop charge of
Section 315 IPC on basis of St.ment of
doctor
-
Application
moved
by
revisionist is misconceived and has
rightly been rejected. (Para 2, 3, 6)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 and learned AGA for the
State.

2. This criminal revision is filed
against the order dated 24.08.2022 passed
in sessions trial no.106 of 2019 (State vs.
Nadeem Tarik) crime no.49 of 2014 passed
by Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC court
no.1. By the impugned order, the learned
trial court has rejected the application 47 ka
filed by accused U/s 216 Cr.P.C.

3. The revisionist is accused in the
sessions trial. Charge-sheet was submitted
U/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 3(1) v IPC
and 3/4 D.P. Act. Charges were also framed
against
the
revisionist-accused.
Trial
commenced. After recording the statement
of P.W.-4 Dr. Mursarat Mujeeb, an
application U/s 216 Cr.P.C. was filed by the
accused alleging therein that it has come on
the record that no act has been done with
intent to prevent child being born alive or
to cause it to die after birth. The testimony
of P.W.-4, Dr. Mursarat Mujeeb clearly
discloses that no abortion was done by her.
She has admitted that she has not done any
abortion or admitted complainant/ victim. It
is clear that false allegations were imputed
by the complainant. From the crossexamination of P.W.-4, it is evident that
incident of any abortion of child killing or
any cruelty as stated in the FIR is vague,
false and fictitious and no such incident
ever
occurred.
In
the
present
case,
specifically in contest of section 315
Cr.P.C. was imputed upon the so called
observation of doctor P.W.-4 and the doctor
has clearly stated about non abortion, non
injury and non criminal activity towards the
patient and consequently question on
apprehension of any activity having nexus
with section 315 IPC itself vanishes.
Henceforth, in the above noted facts and
circumstances of the charge U/s 315 IPC is
to be altered.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
mainly contended what are the grounds
mentioned in the application.

5. Learned AGA and learned counsel
appearing for opposite party no.2 raised
preliminary
objection
about
the
maintainability
of
this
revision
and
submitted that the order is interlocutory, so
this
revision
is
not
maintainable.
4 All. Sachin & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1119

6. It is clear from the material
available on record that charges were
framed against the revisionist-accused on
the basis of material available on record.
Although application has been moved for
alteration of charge U/s 216 Cr.P.C. but
actually its implication is discharge of the
accused from the charge of section 315
IPC. It is no stage to give the finding that
U/s 315 IPC is not made out on the basis of
statement
of
any
particular
witness.
Whether any offence is made out or not, is
a matter of final adjudication which is to be
analyzed and considered in view of the
entire evidence available on record and not
on the basis of any peace-meal evidence.
So there is no sufficient ground to drop the
charge of section 315 IPC at this stage only
on the basis of statement of doctor. The
application moved by the revisionist is
misconceived and has rightly been rejected
by the learned trial court. There is no merit
in this revision and is liable to be
dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the revision is hereby
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1119
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5082 of 2022

Sachin & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Kripa Shankar Trwari, Shivani Chaudhary

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Ram Raj Pandey
Criminal Law- Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504, 506 & 354 - The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections
161, 319 - As per FIR - Seven accused
persons armed with Lathi, Danda, country
made pistol entered into house of first
informant and started to assault and his
son causing them injuries -Accused also
torn
clothes
of
first
informant
and
threatened
her
with
death
-
After
investigation chargesheet was submitted
only against four persons - Application
was moved by prosecution to summon
other accused persons named in FIR on
ground that complainant is also an injured
witness - In her St.ment complainant has
supported allegations of FIR - Trial Court
has summoned revisionists to face trial -
Held, there are specific allegations against
accused
showing
their
complicity
in
incident - Evidence of an eye witness has
greater evidentiary value and unless
compelling reasons exist it is not to be
discarded - Impugned order is based on
cogent evidence and there is no perversity
or illegality. (Para 2, 3, 7, 8)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punjab AIR 2014
Supreme Court page 1400

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 counsel for the O.P.
No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision is filed
against the order dated 30.10.2022 passed