# Padmashri Dr. Usha Sharma Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 106
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 408 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shiv Shanker Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/padmashri-dr-usha-sharma-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50729
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
revision - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302 & 34 - court can exercise the
power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only after
the trial proceeds and commences with
the recording of the evidence and also in
exceptional circumstances - power under
Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is to be invoked and
exercised before the pronouncement of
the order of sentence where there is a
judgment of conviction of the accused -
adding of a person as an accused on the
basis of some suspicion created by a
witnesses would be travesty of justice -
When there is no direct evidence, Hearsay
evidence cannot be the basis for issue of
summons.(Para - 40,43,50)
To quash/set aside - final judgment of
conviction passed - Sessions Judge passed order
to summon revisionist - face trial under Section
319 Cr.P.C. - at belated stage - revisionist
summoned after order of sentence of coaccused - no evidence against the accusedrevisionist - to be guilty of offence - only
witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 giving opinion
- revisionist might have committed offence -
neither any opportunity of hearing nor any
notice has been issued to the revisionist to have
her say - present criminal revision preferred by
revisionist. (Para - 7,44,50,51)

(B) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 319 - Power to proceed against
other persons appearing to be guilty of
offence - "Judges condemned when guilty
is acquitted" - innocent should not be
punished, at the same time, real culprit
should not be allowed to escape.(Para -
24)
HELD:-Judgment and order cannot be legally
sustained and quashed. No Magistrate or any
court of law can invoke or exercise powers
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning any
person to face trial as an accused after passing
of order of sentence qua co-accused. (Para -
55)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,782 of 78,982. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39782 for what follows._

106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. On the reasons, which we have
just pointed out, we are of the opinion, that
the judgement of acquittal could have been
the only probable result of the trial and as
such, this appeal lacks merit and we
dismiss the appeal.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 106
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Criminal Revision No. 408 of 2020

Padmashri Dr. Usha Sharma ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ashwini Kumar Awasthi, Sri Anurag
Vajpeyi, Sri Manish Tewary (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Bhavya Sahai, Sri Mayank Yadav,
Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Sri Vivek Kumar
Singh, Sri Vinay Saran (Sr. Advocate)

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
revision - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302 & 34 - court can exercise the
power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only after
the trial proceeds and commences with
the recording of the evidence and also in
exceptional circumstances - power under
Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is to be invoked and
exercised before the pronouncement of
the order of sentence where there is a
judgment of conviction of the accused -
adding of a person as an accused on the
basis of some suspicion created by a
witnesses would be travesty of justice -
When there is no direct evidence, Hearsay
evidence cannot be the basis for issue of
summons.(Para - 40,43,50)
To quash/set aside - final judgment of
conviction passed - Sessions Judge passed order
to summon revisionist - face trial under Section
319 Cr.P.C. - at belated stage - revisionist
summoned after order of sentence of coaccused - no evidence against the accusedrevisionist - to be guilty of offence - only
witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 giving opinion
- revisionist might have committed offence -
neither any opportunity of hearing nor any
notice has been issued to the revisionist to have
her say - present criminal revision preferred by
revisionist. (Para - 7,44,50,51)

(B) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 319 - Power to proceed against
other persons appearing to be guilty of
offence - "Judges condemned when guilty
is acquitted" - innocent should not be
punished, at the same time, real culprit
should not be allowed to escape.(Para -
24)
HELD:-Judgment and order cannot be legally
sustained and quashed. No Magistrate or any
court of law can invoke or exercise powers
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning any
person to face trial as an accused after passing
of order of sentence qua co-accused. (Para -
55)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hardeep Singh Vs St. Of Punj. , (2014) 3 SCC
92

2. S. Jayaraj Vs St. of T.N. , 2015 SCC OnLine
Mad 14197/(2015) 2 LW (Cri) 574

3. Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs St. of Punj. , 2023
(1) SCC 289

4. Brindavan Das & ors. Vs St. of W.B., (2009) 3
SCC 329/AIR 2009 1248 (SC)/(2009) SAR Crl.
117

5. Periayasamy & ors. Vs Nallasamy, (2019) 4
SCC 342/AIR 2019 SC 1426

6. G. Palanisamy Vs St. , 2003 (2) MWN (Cr.)
9 All. Padmashri Dr. Usha Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
107
7. Labhuji Amratji Thakor Vs St. of Guj. , (2019)
12 SCC 644/2018(4) MLJ(Crl) 739 (SC)

8. Asha Vs St. of Karn., 2016 SCC OnLine Kar
9030

9. Jogendra Yadav Vs St. of Bihar, (2015) 9 SCC
244

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shiv Shanker
Prasad, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Manish Tewary, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashwini
Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the
revisionist, Mr. Vinay Saran, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar
Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 and Mr. R.N. Singh, learned
A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the
entire material available on record.

CHALLENGE TO THE PRESENT
CRIMINAL REVISION

2. This revision under Section
397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of
the revisionist, namely, Padamshri Dr. Usha
Sharma with a prayer to quash/set aside the
judgment and order dated 12th December,
2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Court no.1, Meerut in Sessions Trial
No.1057 of 2008 (State of U.P. Vs. Sachin
Malik & Others), arising out of Case Crime
No. 269 of 2004, under Sections 302 and
34 I.P.C., Police Station Medical, District
Meerut whereby the revisionist has been
summoned by the trial judge to face trial
under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

3. GENESIS OF THE CASE

One Siddhartha Chaudhary (for
short "deceased") was a second year
student of Meerut Medical College and was
found dead in room no. 38 of L.J.B. Hostel
which was allotted to Sachin Malik on 0607-2004. The warden informed the Police
as well as his parents who reached Meerut
from Muzaffarnagar. The dead body was
sealed and removed from the room even
before the parents of the deceased arrived,
who both are doctors. The parents on
enquiry from the warden and the Principal
were told that report had been lodged to the
police, which in fact was not lodged as per
information received by them (parents).

4. As per the report lodged by Dr.
Surendra Singh Grewal (informant/opposite
party no.2) i.e. father of the deceased on
6th July, 2004, on reaching the mortuary
they (parents of the deceased) asked the
doctors
who
were
to
conduct
the
postmortem examination to show the dead
body and after looking at the body they
found swelling and blueness on the face of
the deceased. The deceased had an injury
on the lip and one tooth was also broken,
which showed that the deceased was
asphyxiated by blocking the air passage
and it was a case of murder, so they
requested the doctors who were to conduct
the postmortem examination to mention
these things in the report, but on receiving
the copy of the post mortem report, they
did not found it mentioned. Instead of death
by strangulation, the postmortem report
mentioned that "cause of death could not be
ascertained" under pressure from the
Principal Dr. Usha Sharma (revisionist
herein). It was a clear case of murder of
deceased Siddhartha, in which Principal Dr
Usha Sharma, Sachin Malik, Amandeep
Singh and Yashpal Rang were involved and
the aforesaid persons along with others
were trying to manifest it as suicide. Dr.
Usha Sharma i.e. Principal was protecting
the
accused
persons
as
she
had
misrepresented that case as registered
whereas it wasn't, and therefore the
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
informant approached S.S.P. to get the case
registered and investigated, who vide his
endorsement STC-256-A/04 sent it for
registration of F.I.R. and on the basis of
which Case Crime No.269/2004 under
Section 302 IPC was registered vide F.I.R.
No. 199/2004 dated 9th August, 2004.

5. After investigation, the Police filed
closure report on 15th February, 2006
against
which
the
informant
filed
objections. On considering the material
available on record like the statements of
witnesses recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C., the observations made by the
Human Rights Commission, etc., the
Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Meerut
vide detailed order dated 6th December,
2006 while rejecting the closure report
submitted by the Investigating Officer, had
summoned the accused persons, namely,
Sachin
Malik, Amandeep Singh
and
Yashpal Rana to face trial, but partly
accepted the closure report submitted
against the revisionist Dr. Usha Sharma.
Thus, case against only three accused
namely Sachin Malik, Amandeep Singh
and Yashpal Rana had been committed for
trial on 8th August, 2008. Charges were
framed by the trial court against accused
persons, namely, Sachin Malik, Amandeep
Singh and Yashpal Rana on 29th August,
2014 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. to which
all three accused persons pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial, As many as twenty
witnesses have been examined by the
prosecution whereas one witness has been
examined by the accused persons in
defence.

The incriminating circumstances
were put before the accused persons. In
their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
all three accused persons denied the
allegations levelled against them and stated
that final report is correctly filed by the
Investigating Officer and they had no
enmity with the deceased.

6. Vide judgment and order dated
12th December, 2019, the trial court,
namely, Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.1,
Meerut,
after
considering
the
arguments of ADGC (Criminal) and that of
defence counsel and going through the
written arguments filed on behalf of
accused persons on 22-5-2019, including
the rulings cited therein and also perusing
the entire material available on record
during the course of trial has convicted the
three accused persons, namely, Sachin
Malik, Yashpal Rana, and Amandeep Singh
for the offence punishable under Section
302 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life along with
fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that
after passing final judgment of conviction,
the concerned Sessions Judge has passed an
order to summon the revisionist for facing
trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at such a
belated stage. It is against this part of the
judgment and order dated 12th December,
2019 that the present criminal revision has
been preferred by the revisionist.

CASE OF THE REVISIONIST

8. The revisionist is wholly innocent
and in no way she was connected with the
aforesaid criminal case, which was initiated
after lodging of a very belated FIR by
opposite party no.2/first informant, namely,
Dr. Surendra Singh for the death of his son
Siddhartha Chaudhaury, who was a student
of Medical College Meerut, at police
station
Medical,
District
Meerut
on
09.08.2004 at 2015 hours with respect to an
incident which occurred on 06.07.2004. It
9 All. Padmashri Dr. Usha Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
109
was on the strength of completely baseless
and frivolous allegations qua the alleged
actions taken by the revisionist after the
death of Siddhartha Chaudhary, in order to
cover up the same that the revisionist, who
was the then Principal of Medical College
Meerut, has also been arrayed as an
accused along with other co- accused
persons, namely, Sachin Malik, Yashpal
Rana and Amandeep Singh, who were
students of Medical College Meerut at that
time.

9. The revisionist is a highly qualified
and decorated doctor having a renowned
career. She is also a Padmashri Awardee.
Her qualifications and accomplishments
have been given in paragraph-7 of the
affidavit
accompanying
the
present
criminal revision.

10. According to the allegations as set
out in the first information report it has
been claimed by the first informant that on
06.07.2004 he was informed by the warden
of Medical College Meerut regarding the
death of his son Sidharth Chaudhary,
whereafter the first informant and his wife
travelled from Muzaffarnagar to Medical
College Meerut. However the inquest
proceedings had been concluded only after
information of the present incident was
given to the police by the college through
Dr. Vinay Agrawal and it is completely on
vague/baseless suspicion that the present
FIR has been lodged against the revisionist
and the co-accused persons. The coaccused Sachin Malik along with the
deceased Sidharth Chaudhary were both
2nd year students of Medical College
Meerut and co-accused Yashpal Rana and
Amandeep Singh were their seniors at
Medical College Meerut at the time of the
occurrence of the present incident and the
revisionist was the Principal of the college.
After information regarding the unfortunate
demise of the son of the first informant was
given by the hospital's authorities to the
police, inquest proceeding took place on
06.07.2004 at 3.30 p.m. Perusal of the
postmortem
examination
report
dated
06.07.2004 prepared by Dr. Harpal Singh
and Dr. M.K. Gulati reveals that no antemortem injury was seen on the body of the
deceased and the cause of death could not
be
ascertained,
hence
viscera
was
preserved. The same opinion also emanates
from the inquest report, wherein no visible
injuries were found on the corpse of the
deceased and the opinion regarding cause
of death was suggested as consumption of
some kind of poison. Subsequently the
viscera report was also submitted by the
forensic
science
laboratory Agra
on
06.10.2004 with the finding that ethyl
alcohol poison was found in the visceral
organs of the deceased. However, the first
informant Dr. Surendra Singh Grewal, after
lapse of a month from the date of incident,
filed a very malicious application the basis
of which the present first information
report came to be lodged on 09.08.2004.
During the course of trial, the inquest
report along with postmortem report and
viscera report have duly been proved by
P.W.5
Rajeev
Kumar
Kaushik
(who
prepared the inquest report) and P.W.6
M.K. Gulati (Doctor who conducted
postmortem report). Allegations levied in
the first information report are completely
in teeth of the postmortem report and
viscera report

11. From the testimonies of P.W.1
first informant Dr. Surendra Singh Grewal
and P.W.2 Smt. Surendarjeet Kaur (wife of
first informant), it is evident that the FIR
was lodged after due consultation, hence
the veracity of the contents of the same is
completely doubtful and the delay incurred
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the lodging of the same would also
demolish
the
very
essence
of
the
prosecution case.

12. After the lodging of the present
FIR the investigation of the present case
commenced and the initial investigating
officer P.W.19 Mahesh Chandra Yadav
could not find any cogent evidence to
fortify the allegations levied by the first
informant. Thereafter upon a representation
made
by
the
first
informant,
the
investigation of the present case was
transferred to the C.B.C.I.D. and the
Deputy S.P. C.I.D. B.S. Chauhan (P.W.18)
by the order of zonal officer dated
17.02.2005 and both the investigating
officers after recording statements of
material witnesses arrived at the same
conclusion that the deceased Sidharth
Chaudhary habitually consumed alcohol
and drugs and would often be in an
inebriated state injuring himself and also
that he had no enmity with either of the
accused persons, as such a final report was
filed in the present matter on 15.02.2006.
Against aforesaid final report the first
informant filed a protest petition and
subsequently vide order dated 06.12.2006
the court of learned Special C.J.M. Meerut,
rejected the final report as far as the coaccused Sachin Malik, Yashpal Rana and
Amandeep Singh are concerned and they
were summoned to face trial, however, the
final report against Dr. Usha Sharma i.e.
revisionist was accepted with the observation
that not even a prima-facie offence appears to
be made out against her. Thereafter the matter
was committed to the court of sessions on
08.08.2008 and after the framing of charges
against co-accused Sachin Malik, Yashpal
Rana and Amandeep Singh on 29.08.2014
under section 302 and 34 I.P.C., the trial of
the present case commenced. During the
course of trial the testimonies of P.W.1 Dr.
Surendra Singh and P.W.2 Smt. Surendarjeet
Kaur were recorded and both the first
informant
and
his
wife,
who
are
accomplished
doctors,
having
depth
knowledge in the field of medical science,
have accordingly forwarded a very tutored
and concocted version in their depositions,
however their testimonies are in stark contrast
with the medical evidence on record and
hence no reliance ought to have been placed
upon the testimonies of both these highly
partisan and interested witnesses. In any case
both P.W.1 and P.W.2 have failed to give any
direct evidence in the present matter and their
testimonies pertaining to the cause of death of
their son is completely conjectural in nature
and a very feeble attempt has been made of
foisting a motive behind the commission of
the present offence, which no man of
ordinary prudence would be tempted even in
the slightest to believe or place reliance upon.

13. So far as the co-accused persons,
namely, Sachin Malik, Yashpal Rana and
Amandeep Singh are concerned, it is clear
that co-accused Sachin Malik was the batchmate of deceased Sidharth Chaudhary at
Medical College, Meerut and co-accused
namely, Yashpal Rana and Amandeep Singh
were his seniors and there were some
financial disputes between them and the
deceased, as claimed by P.W.1 and P.W.2 in
their testimonies. However, the same has no
concern with the revisionist and a very farfetched conspiracy has been insinuated by
P.W.1 and P.W.2 with the sole oblique motive
of roping the revisionist in the present case
without any viable basis for the same, apart
from mere oral allegations made by P.W. 1
and P.W. 2, without any supporting or
corroborating material or evidence.

14. The trial court has erringly placed
over reliance upon the testimonies of P.W.1
and P.W.2 and has drawn his conclusion,
9 All. Padmashri Dr. Usha Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
111
which is completely against the record of
the present case, hence the summoning of
the revisionist in the present case is
completely bad in the eyes of law and
hence, the same deserves to be set aside.
The trial court has completely disregarded
the testimonies of various prosecution
witnesses who were studying along with
the co- accused persons and deceased
Sidhartha Chaudhary at Medical College,
Meerut, all of them have stated that the
deceased habitually consumed drugs and
alcohol, would often injure himself in an
inebriated state, his attendance in medical
college was falling short, on the night of
the fateful incident he was seen staggering
in the corridors of the hostel and was then
taken to the room of co-accused Sachin
Mallik where possibly on account of
excessive consumption of alcohol/drugs he
was found dead in the morning and a
completely
nonplussed
Sachin
Malik
informed college authorities regarding the
death of the deceased. None of the said
witnesses made any mention of any tension
or dispute between either of the accused
persons with the deceased and there is not
even a whisper regarding the complicity or
involvement of the revisionist by any of the
witnesses. P.W.10 Dr. Bharat Singh who
was a batch-mate of co-accused Amandeep
and Yashpal had, a day before the incident,
found the son of the first informant lying
out in the open in an intoxicated condition,
when said witness took him to the hostel
and the other students informed him that
this was daily occurrence.

15. Collective perusal of all the
aforesaid testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, in addition to the findings of the
postmortem report and viscera report would
unequivocally and without any shadow of
doubt exculpate the revisionist and the
other accused persons of any criminal
liability in the present case, however the
learned trial court has not appreciated the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in
its right perspective and has in a very
arbitrary
manner
disbelieved
the
postmortem examination report and the
viscera report terming it as incongruent and
has formed its own opinion regarding the
cause of death of the deceased to be
probably as a result of asphyxia. The
learned court below has termed P.W.17 Dr.
Amar Singh, who is working as the
assistant medico legal expert Lucknow, as
the star witness of the prosecution and
though this witness has submitted a report,
based on a mere perusal of the medical
reports and inquest report, that prima-facie
the present case appears to be one of
murder as the symptoms noted in the
postmortem report and viscera report
appear to be that of asphyxia, however
while placing reliance on said testimony
the learned trial court has failed to
appreciate the fact that said perfunctory
opinion was arrived at without admittedly
perusing all requisite documents and in any
case his opinion is based on assumptions
and presumptions, hence the same should
have more cautiously been read into by the
learned trial court.

16. The learned trial court has also
arrived at a very precarious finding that
there is no documentary evidence regarding
the fact that the deceased was a habitual
drunkard, inspite of acknowledging the fact
that various witnesses have claimed that the
deceased was a regular drinker and was
also seen staggering on the night of the
incident and has erroneous arrived at the
finding that the deceased had not consumed
liquor. The impugned judgment and order
passed
by
the
learned
trial
court,
particularly to the extent of the summoning
of the revisionist u/s 319 Cr.P.C. in the
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present case, is entirely perverse and has
been passed without any application of its
judicial mind by the learned trial court and
the same is nothing but a product of wild
conjecturing and unsubstantiated surmises
drawn by the learned trial court.

17. Perusal of the entire record of the
present case would establish that there is no
direct evidence whatsoever as far as the
revisionist is concerned and neither has any
cogent motive for the revisionist to have
been complicit or have any hand in the
unfortunate death of Siddhartha Chaudhary.
In fact the prosecution case as far as the
accused persons under trial is also, at best,
reliant upon circumstantial evidence, that to
of a non-existent nature, which fails to even
link the chain of circumstances leading up
to the death of deceased Sidhartha
Chaudhary, is much less complete such
chain. However, inspite of the facts and
circumstances mentioned above, the Trial
Court has in an unprecedented, irregular
and illegal manner, while convicting the coaccused persons in the present case, vide
the same impugned order, summoned the
Principal of Medical College Meerut Dr.
Usha Sharma to face trial in the present
case. The summoning of the revisionist in
the present case, erroneously exercising the
powers under section 319 Cr.P.C., after
becoming Functus Officio of the matter at
hand, is completely bad in the eyes of law
and hence the same deserves to be set
aside. In any case, upon sifting the entire
material and evidence on record of the
present case, there is no iota of cogent or
even credible evidence to justify the
summoning of the revisionist in the present
case. The revisionist is a 76 year old lady,
having a very decorated career in the
medical field and commands the utmost
respect in society. She has no criminal
history and as such it would be a travesty of
justice if she would have to go through the
rigours of trial, that to when there is no
evidence or material on record warranting
the same.

18. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED
ON BEHALF OF THE REVISIONIST

(i) The revisionist has been
summoned
to
face
trial
under
the
provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. at the
time of the delivery of judgment. Section
319 Cr.P.C. clearly stipulates that where, in
the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an
offence, it appears from the evidence that
any person not being the accused has
committed any offence for which such
person could be tried together with the
accused, the Court may proceed against
such person for the offence which he
appears to have committed, meaning
thereby that the Court may not proceed
against such person by issuing summon to
face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at the
time of delivery of judgment. Therefore,
such orders clearly hit the statutory
provision. In support of such plea, learned
counsel for the revisionist has relied upon
the judgment of the Constitution Bench of
the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep
Singh V. State Of Punjab, reported in
(2014) 3 SCC 92.

(ii) It is discernible from Section
319 Cr.P.C. that the evidence that can be
used to summon a person to face trial by
using the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C.
is the "evidence" collected during trial.

(iii) From perusal of entire
records of the case, it is evident that no
prima facie case is made out against the
revisionist and also there is no direct
allegation or evidence found against the
revisionist. From the testimonies of P.W.1
Dr. Surendra Singh Grewal, P.W.2 Smt.
Surendra Jeet Kaur Grewal, P.W.3 Mrinal
9 All. Padmashri Dr. Usha Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
113
Rathi, P.W.4 Dr. Ajeet Singh, P.W.9 Md.
Gayas, P.W.10. Dr. Bharat Singh, P.W.11
Kunwar Pal Singh and P.W.12 Anil Kumar,
it is also apparently clear that except P.W.1
and P.W.2, the rest of the witnesses have
not even made a reference of the
revisionist, insofar as P.W.1 and P.W.2 are
concerned
they
only
expressed
their
apprehension which has not been supported
by either any evidence or any reasoning in
the light of such situation there is no
earthly reason to justify the summoning of
the revisionist. From the testimony of P.W.-
1 i.e. informant/opposite party no.2, it also
apparent that the same is nothing but
apprehension/suspicion without any basis.
There is no other circumstance indicating
any culpability. The said deposition given
by P.W.-1 is nothing but a delusional quote
given by the first informant. Apart from the
above there is no other evidence of any
nature. Thus, in the absence of any material
the summoning is unjustified and perverse.
In support of such plea, the constitution
bench judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Hardeep Singh V. State Of
Punjab, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 has
been
relied
upon.
The
following
observations laid down by the Apex Court
has also been referred:

"though only a prima facie case
is to be established from the evidence led
before the court, not necessarily tested on
the anvil of cross-examination, 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 view of the above law laid
down by the Apex Court, it has been
submitted that in the absence of such
satisfaction, the court should refrain from
exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
And thus the summoning of the revisionist
in the present case deserves to be set aside.

(iv) Findings recorded by the trial
court while passing the impugned judgment
and order are based merely on conjectures
and surmises and there is no mention of
any direct role of the revisionist in the
present case. Perusal of the testimonies and
the findings of the post mortem as well as
the viscera report would exculpate the
revisionist of any criminal liability.

(v) There is no injury mentioned
in the inquest or the post mortem
examination report. It is not to be forgotten
that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are by profession
doctors and as such they have deposed
obliquely in respect of signs of post
mortem in an attempt to somehow foster a
case. As per the post mortem report, no
injury was seen on the body of the
deceased and even in the inquest report
there is no mentioning of any visible injury.
The viscera report mentioned the cause of
death to be the presence of Ethyl Alcohol
poison.

(vi) The arguments advanced
from the side of the prosecution regarding
the smell of alcohol is purely dependent on
the time period elapsed between the death
and the post mortem examination report as
such there can be no consideration of the
same.

(vii) Even if such a dichotomy
exists, there is no occasion to assume the
culpability
of
the
revisionist.
The
deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is in terms of
casting aspersions and allegations in air
against the revisionist which are not
supported by any reasoning or evidence,
thus, there is no reason to even be
suspicious regarding the culpability of the
revisionist.

(viii) In the absence of any cogent
material which may constitute any sought
114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of evidence, the summoning of the
revisionist is totally unjustified. The trial
court while passing the impugned judgment
and order, has not even recorded any
finding qua the existence of material but
has merely summoned the revisionist on
apprehension
/presumption
/conjectures
/surmises in the internal page number 32 of
the judgment. The reasons assigned for
such summoning are totally unjustified and
perverse.

(ix) The allegations were levelled
in an unjustifiably delayed first information
report. Investigation as per Chapter XII
CR.P.C. took place in respect of the alleged
offence, ultimately resulting in filing of a
final report in favour of all the accused
persons including the revisionist under the
provisions of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
Subsequently after filing of the protest
petition vide order dated 06.12.2006 the
court of Special CJM Meerut rejected the
final report qua the other accused but the
final report in respect of the revisionist was
accepted by the same order. The first
informant thereafter has not challenged the
order
dated
06.12.2006
before
any
forum/court of law, as such the order of
acceptance of the final report in respect of
the revisionist became absolute. Thus,
taking a cumulative view of the facts and
circumstances, there is no earthly reason to
summon the revisionist to face trial by
using the provisions under Section 319
Cr.P.C. and the order dated 07.12.2019 and
12.12.2019 summoning the revisionist is
perverse, unjustified and patently illegal.

(x) The prevalent proponent of
law quintessentially enshrined by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep
Singh (2014) 3 SCC 1992 would lend
support to the aforesaid averment on behalf
of
the
revisionist
and
would
bar
summoning her in the present case under
section 319 Cr.P.C.

On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid,
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist submits that the order impugned
passed by the trial court summoning the
revisionist to face trial under Section 319
Cr.P.C. being contrary, arbitrary and illegal
is liable to be quashed.

SUBMISSIONS
OF
THE
LEARNED
COUNSEL
FOR
THE
OPPOSITE PARTIES

19. Per contra, learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A.
for the State have disputed the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the
revisionists by contending that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the order passed by
the trial judge summoning the revisionist
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for facing trial in
the case in hand.

19. Apart from the above, Mr. Vinay
Saran, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for opposite party no.2 has contended as
follows:

(I)
The
deceased
Siddhartha
Chaudhary was a second year student of
Meerut Medical College raised his voice
against the corrupt practices prevailed in
the Medical Collage including the Principal
Usha Sharma (the Revisionist) in the
admission of students in various courses
and moved several complaint against the
higher authorities. In support of the same, a
copy of the complaint dated 3.4.2004 has
been enclosed as -SCA-XIII to the
supplementary counter affidavit.

(II) PW-1 Surendra Singh Grewal
and PW-2 Smt. Surendra Jeet Grewal have
clearly deposed before the trial Court about
the motive for the murder, that the
revisionist Usha Sharma, the Principal of
the Medical College, often used to threaten
9 All. Padmashri Dr. Usha Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
115
Siddhartha (deceased) that she would not
allow him to become a leader like Dr.
Mahipal Chaudhary (who earlier exposed
her corrupt practices) and thus, she
conspired with other co- accused to get him
killed in a pre-planned manner.

(III) Admittedly, the deceased
Siddhartha Chaudhary, who was a second
year student of Meerut Medical College
was allotted Room No. 42 at L.J.B. Hostel,
but strangely he was found dead in room
No. 38 of L.J.B. Hostel, which was allotted
to the co accused Sachin Malik on 6th July,
2004 in unnatural circumstance with visible
injuries on his body.

(IV) The revisionist from the very
beginning misled the Police and the parents
of
the
deceased
including
the
first
informant and no immediate information of
the unnatural death was promptly given to
the parents of the deceased and they were
informed quite late at about 10:30 am about
the incident and further before the parents
could reach the college, the body of the
deceased was shifted to mortuary by
manipulating the place of occurrence so
that the parents could not see the actual
situation and their only son.

(V) The revisionist Dr. Usha
Sharma shielded the co-accused persons by
misleading the investigation and the
information
of
unnatural
death
was
communicated to the Police Station-
Medical on 6th July, 2004 at 11:00 a.m.
recorded in G.D. no. 24 which is apparent
from the statement of PW-7, Sub-Inspector
Sohanveer Singh.

(VI)
P.W.-5,
Sub-Inspector
Rajeev Kumar Kaushik who conducted the
panchayatnama (inquest report) of the
deceased, has categorically stated that he
conducted the inquest at Room No. 38 of
LJB Hostel and also noticed blueness on
the face and the chest of the deceased and
he has further stated that it was not a
normal death.

(VII). P.W.-1 Dr. Surendra Singh
has stated before the trial judge that on
visible inspection of the body of his son, he
noticed that the face, eyes, chest, hands and
nails of hands were deeply cyanosed. He
also found froth coming out from his mouth
and nose. He further noticed that the lower
lip of the deceased had a cut mark on the
right side and one incisor tooth of upper
jaw was broken. (Indicating use of force to
administer something soon before the
death). Further when he opened his eyes, he
found pin head size blood spots in both
eyes
(another
typical
symptom
of
strangulation). On turning the body of the
deceased by him, on the mortuary table, the
back, chest and neck were blue in colour.
He also did not find smell of urine or stool
etc. which showed that his clothes had been
changed after death. P.W.-2 Smt Surendra
Jeet Singh Greval, mother of the deceased
also noticed aforesaid injuries on the body
of the deceased which is apparent from her
statement recorded before the trial Court.

(VIII). P.W.-6 Dr. M.K. Gulathi
who conduct the postmortem examination
on the dead body of the deceased
Siddhartha Chaudhary, has stated that
though no external injures were found but
nails and lips were blue and further he has
stated that there was no sign of injury on
the chest or on the face. There was no urine
or excreta on the clothes and since the
cause of death was not ascertained
therefore viscera was preserved. Dr. Amar
Singh, PW-17 who was examined as
Medico Legal Expert, has stated that his
report was based on documents sent by the
S.S.P.
i.e.
Postmortem
Report,
Panchayatnama, on the basis of which he
gave the report that prima facie it was case
of murder.
116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(IX.) The parents of the deceased,
who
were
also
medical
doctors
by
profession and were running a nursing
home in Muzaffarnagar, complained that
the police was not properly investigating
the case under pressure of the revisionist
Principal Usha Sharma and she was trying
to give it a colour of suicide and the
witnesses were also under her pressure as
she being the Principal of Medical College
and the witness being students and staff of
Medical College could not dare to speak
against her.

(X.) The judgment and order
dated 07.12.2019 and also the order dated
12.12.2019 are wholly legal and have been
passed after giving full opportunity of
hearing and discussion on merits. While
holding the accused Sachin Malik, Yashpal
Rana and Amandeep Singh guilty, the trial
judge, on the same day rightly summoned
the Revisionist Usha Sharma to face the
trial after rightly holding that there was
sufficient material on record to proceed
against her, while exercising the power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and thereafter
fixed 12.12.2019 for hearing the matter on
the point of sentence for the convicted
accused person.

(XI).
The
proposition
of
exercising the power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. before pronouncing the sentence
has been justified and upheld by the
Constitutional
Bench of
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sukhpal
Singh Khaira Vs State of Punjab reported
in 2023 (1) SCC 289.

(XII).The
Revisionist
Usha
Sharma,
who
being
a
"Padmashree
awardee' was extremely influential and she
left no stone unturned to mislead the
investigation in order to save the accused
persons (now convicted) and herself and
also to save the reputation of the medical
college. Because of the influence of
revisionist Usha Sharma, the family of the
deceased were misled on the pretext that
the FIR had already been lodged by the
College/
University/
Administration,
although no such first information report
was registered by them hence the delay in
lodging the FIR was fully explained.

(XIII). The records of the case i.e.
statements of the witnesses recorded under
section 161 Cr.P.C., inquest report, Post
mortem report as well as the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses especially P.W.-
1-Surendra Singh Greval and P.W.-2Surender Jeet Singh Greval, P.W.-5 SubInspector Rajiv Singh Kausik and P.W.-17-
Dr. Amar Singh clearly go to show that
there appears to be enough strong and
cogent evidence which was more than
prima-facie against the revisionist which
was sufficient to summon her by exercising
the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

(XIV). The material/evidence on
record against the revisionist was found to
be more than prima facie to show that the
revisionist indulged actively in misleading
the
prosecution
and
influenced
the
investigation so as to save the accused
persons for causing disappearance of
evidence of offence and to screen the
offender from legal punishment by using
the influence and superior position being
'Padamashree' awardee and highly qualified
doctor and principal of a medical college.

(XV). The trial judge, while
passing the impugned order, has taken all
the precautions and waited till the end of
trial and did not hurriedly summon the
revisionist exercising its powers under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. While summoning the
revisionist the trial Judge has followed all
the precautions and guidelines as framed by
the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep
Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in
(2014) 3 SCC 92.
9 All. Padmashri Dr. Usha Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
117

(XVI). The revisionist from the
very beginning, by misusing her influence
and clout, has misled the police during the
investigation and for this very reason no
first information report was promptly
lodged by medical college administration
as also the family members of the first
informant were also misled which resulted
in delay of lodging of the actual FIR by the
first Informant who bonafidely believed
that the correct report of the incident was
already lodged by the College.

(XVII). There is ample material
on record collected during the investigation
as well as during the trial against the
revisionist which goes to show that because
of her interference, homicidal death of
deceased Siddhartha Chaudhary was tried
giving a colour of a suicide or death caused
by excessive alcohol drinking by the
deceased.

(XVIII). The trial Judge has
rightly considered the entire material
collected during the course of investigation
as well as the material brought on record
during the trial and thereafter finding that
there was more than prima facie case
against the revisionist summoned her by
exercising the power under section 319
Cr.P.C., the order on the protest petition
cast no bar upon the powers exercised
under 319 Cr.P.C. as in the present case the
material brought on record during the
course of trial was also taken on record. In
support of the said submission, reliance
upon the judgment of the Madras High
Court in the case of S. Jayaraj vs. State of
Tamilnadu reported in 2015 SCC OnLine
Mad 14197/(2015) 2 LW (Cri) 574, has
been placed.