# Raghunath Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1472
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-01
- **Case number:** Crl. Revision No. 1058 of 2023
- **Bench:** Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raghunath-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50880
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 307 & 504 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 227 & 319 -
F.I.R.
lodged
by
informant
against
accused and co-accused, alleging that
owing to prior enmity, both abused his
son, when his objected, co-accused fired
at him with pistol, causing gunshot injury
at back of his neck - Victim was medically
examined where firearm entry wound
confirmed - Investigation culminated in
charge sheet against co-accused alone -
During trial, after examination of two
witnesses, application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was
allowed, summoning accused - Criminal
Revision
against
summoning
order
dismissed by High Court - Discharge
application rejected by trial court
-
Impugned
order
-
Held,
revisionist
contends
that
prosecution
witnesses
deposed falsely - It is settled law that at
this
stage,
evidence
cannot
be
meticulously
scrutinized,
nor
can
categorical finding on its credibility be
recorded
-
Such
determination
is
permissible only upon evaluation of entire
material
and
evidence
produced
by
prosecution at trial - Opportunity of
hearing afforded to accused person u/s
2 All. Raghunath Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1473
227 Cr.P.C. is limited to consideration of
prosecution material alone - Credibility of
evidence by witnesses to be tested in
cross-examination
-
No
illegality
in
impugned order. (Para 3, 9, 10)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

1472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
uncontroverted. Although the grounds to
allow the application for delay condonation
to advance substantial justice could
have been considered but looking to the
history of the issue and dispute being
the filing of an application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court
challenging the order impugned, getting
it withdrawn for seeking appropriate
remedy as per law, then the filing of the
present revision that too with a delay
and
conveniently
avoiding
the
disclosure of the date on which the
order impugned was applied for, for
being filed with the memo in the
revision before this Court along with
the
fact
that
there
has
been
unsubstantiated submissions as reasons
for delay in filing of the revision it does
not show any seriousness in persuasion
of the matter.

23. This Court views the applicant
to be casual, non-serious and nonvigilant
in
preferring
the
present
revision.

24. Thus looking to the entire facts
as stated above and the law as culled
out along with fact of non-prejudice,
this Court is of the opinion that the
application for condonation of delay is
without any cogent reason, convincing
justification and substantiated material
and as such is not inclined to condone
the delay.

25. The Criminal Misc. Delay
Condonation Application No. 1 of 2023
dated 11.04.2023 is dismissed.

26. Since the misc. application for
condonation of delay is dismissed, the
revision also would not survive and is
also consigned to records.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1472
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Crl. Revision No. 1058 of 2023

Raghunath ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Rahul Singh Dahiya

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Chandra Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 307 & 504 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 227 & 319 -
F.I.R.
lodged
by
informant
against
accused and co-accused, alleging that
owing to prior enmity, both abused his
son, when his objected, co-accused fired
at him with pistol, causing gunshot injury
at back of his neck - Victim was medically
examined where firearm entry wound
confirmed - Investigation culminated in
charge sheet against co-accused alone -
During trial, after examination of two
witnesses, application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was
allowed, summoning accused - Criminal
Revision
against
summoning
order
dismissed by High Court - Discharge
application rejected by trial court
-
Impugned
order
-
Held,
revisionist
contends
that
prosecution
witnesses
deposed falsely - It is settled law that at
this
stage,
evidence
cannot
be
meticulously
scrutinized,
nor
can
categorical finding on its credibility be
recorded
-
Such
determination
is
permissible only upon evaluation of entire
material
and
evidence
produced
by
prosecution at trial - Opportunity of
hearing afforded to accused person u/s
2 All. Raghunath Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1473
227 Cr.P.C. is limited to consideration of
prosecution material alone - Credibility of
evidence by witnesses to be tested in
cross-examination
-
No
illegality
in
impugned order. (Para 3, 9, 10)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of Raj. Vs Ashok Kumar Kashyap, 2021
SCC Online 314 (SC)

2. St. by Karnataka Lokayukta Vs M. R.
Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515

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

1. Sri Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned
counsel for the revisionist, Sri Chandra
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for
the State are present.

2. This criminal revision has been
filed
challenging
the
order
dated
13.02.2023 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.6, Bulandshahar in S.T.
No.814 of 2021 (State vs. Arun), whereby
the application under section 227 of Cr.P.C.
of the revisionist has been rejected.

3. Relevant facts emerging from the
record are as below:-

(I) The first informant- Rajveer
filed an F.I.R. naming two persons Arun
and Raghunath with the allegations that
owing to old enmity, both of them began
using abusive words against his son
Dheeraj; when Dheeraj protested, Arun
whipped out his pistol and shot at him; the
shot hit at the back of his neck; he was
referred to District Hospital, Meerut;

(II) The matter was investigated
upon; the injured was examined at District
Hospital, Bulandshahar; a fire arm wound
of entry was found behind his neck; the
statement of witnesses were recorded and
thereafter one of the named accused
persons Arun was charge-sheeted;

(III) The Sessions Trial against
him proceeded and two witnesses were
examined by the court concerned; an
application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was
moved for summoning Raghunath as
accused; the Court passed an order dated
02.07.2022 summoning him to face trial
under sections- 307 and 504 I.P.C.;

(IV)
Challenging
the
above
summoning order, a Criminal Revision
No.3018 of 2022 was filed by Raghunath,
which was dismissed by order dated
21.11.2022 by the High Court;

(V)
Thereafter,
discharge
application on behalf of Raghunath Singh
was moved before the trial court on
13.02.2023; the trial court dismissed the
same by order dated 13.02.2023, which is
now under challenge before this Court.

4. Following grounds have been taken
by the revisionist to assail the impugned
order:-
 It was the revisionist- Raghunath, who
brought injured Dheeraj for treatment at
District Hospital, Bulandshahar.
 The injured sustained only one fire arm
injury.

Eye-witness Deepanshu has stated that the
shot was fired upon by co-accused Arun
and that the present revisionist was not
present at the spot.

Certain witnesses have given notarized
affidavit during the course of investigation
confirming absence of revisionist on the
spot, at the time of occurrence.
1474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The Investigating Officer did not find
sufficient evidence against him, therefore
he did not charge-sheet him.
During the course of investigation, an
inquiry was conducted by Additional
Superintendent of Police and he found that
revisionist- Raghunath was not involved in
the instant incident.
 The evidence given by P.W.1 is false.
The revision filed by him challenging the
order passed under section 319 Cr.P.C. was
not disposed of on merit. Hence that order
cannot be considered as estopping the
revisionist from raising the objections
against framing of charge.
The impugned order is cryptic, nonspeaking, illegal and arbitrary.

5. Heard both the sides and perused
the material on record.

6. One of the forceful contentions of
the revisionist is that the dismissal of his
criminal revision by the High Court filed
against order passed under section 319
Cr.P.C., cannot be treated as an obstacle for
considering his discharge application on
merit for the reason that it was not
considered on merit. Besides raising above
point, it is argued that there are several
facts, which should have been considered
by the trial court as they point out towards
the innocence of the revisionist. It is argued
that the fact that it was the revisionist
himself who brought the injured in the
hospital and that several witnesses gave
evidence during the course of investigation
as well that he was not present on the spot
at the time of occurrence should have been
given importance but these facts were
completely ignored by the trial court.

7. As far as the scope of Section- 227
Cr.P.C. is concerned, the Supreme Court in
State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar
Kashyap, 2021 SCC Online 314 (SC) held
that:-

"At the stage of framing of the
charge, it has to be seen whether or not a
prima facie case is made out and the
defence of the accused is not to be
considered."

8. In another case, the Supreme Court
in State by Karnataka Lokayukta vs. M.
R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515, has held
that:-

"It is a settled principle of law
that at the stage of considering an
application for discharge the court must
proceed on the assumption that the
material which has been brought on the
record by the prosecution is true and
evaluate
the
material
in
order
to
determine whether the facts emerging
from the material, taken on its face value,
disclose the existence of the ingredients
necessary to constitute the offence."

9. At this juncture, it may be noted
that the revisionist-accused has been
summoned by the trial court by exercise of
powers under section- 319 Cr.P.C. and that
the order has become final as it remains
unchallenged. It will create a anomalous
situation, if court is allowed to give a
finding, though there were sufficient
material to take cognizance against an
accused person under section 319 Cr.P.C.,
but there is no sufficient ground to frame
charge against him. This legal position is
also noteworthy that at this stage the Court
is not allowed to consider any extraneous
material, which is not already part of
record. In other words, it is not permissible
for the Court to consider the defence of the
accused. He cannot bring any evidence in
his defence though it is perfectly within his
2 All. Juvenile X Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1475
rights to point out the deficiencies, flaws or
infirmities in the prosecution case. In this
view of the matter, the Court has to act in a
narrow
purview.
The
revisionist-
Raghunath has specifically mentioned that
the witnesses of fact have given false
evidence; this is a settled position of law
that the evidence on record cannot be
evaluated in a meticulous manner at this
stage; this is not the stage to give a
categorical finding that evidence given by
the witnesses is not worthy of credit; any
such determination can only take place on
the basis of evaluation of all the material
and evidence produced by the prosecution
during the proceeding of trial; The
questions which have been raised by the
revisionist shall assume importance at the
appropriate stage of the trial i.e. at the time
of conclusion thereof.

10. In my view, the opportunity of
hearing afforded to the accused person
under the provisions of Section 227 should
be understood in a narrow compass in as
much the points raised by him must be
decided on the basis of the record/material
produced by the prosecution and nothing
more; As far as the credibility or the
reliability of the evidence given by the
witness is concerned, it can only be tested
by putting those witnesses through crossexamination and thereafter sifting the
evidence through the judicial lens; In the
light of above discussion, I do not find any
irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the
order so as to prompt this court to interfere
or to exercise its powers under Section 397
Cr.P.C.

11. Accordingly, this criminal revision
is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1475
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Crl. Revision No. 1506 of 2022

Juvenile X ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Ashok Kumar Rai

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 363, 366, 376, 342 & 506 -
POCSO Act, 2012 - Section 3⁄4 - SC/ST Act,
1989 - Section 3(2)5 - Juvenile Justice
Act, 2015 - Section 15 - FIR lodged
against
juvenile
and
charge-sheet
submitted under aforesaid Sections - On
application, he was declared "child in
conflict with law" on basis of his recorded
date of birth (19.04.2002 / 01.07.2003),
both showing him below 18 years, case
was transmitted to J.J.Board - Informant
thereafter sought inquiry u/s 15 JJ Act, as
juvenile was above 16 years - J.J.Board
ordered inquiry, further affirmed in appeal
- Impugned order - Challenged on ground
that Principal of institution proved date of
birth showing age 15 years 9 months;
thus, no provision to apply section of JJ
Act, inquiry was illegal and legality of
initiating inquiry under JJ Act after expiry
of prescribed period - Held, mother of
juvenile, on oath, St.d his date of birth as
16.04.2002, which remained unshaken in
cross-examination - Admission in primary
school
made
by
grandmother,
no
authentic document produced at that
time, recorded date of 01.07.2003 based
on estimation by guardian - No evidence
shown to prefer primary school record
over
date
of
birth
corroborated
by
mother's
St.ment
and
high
school