# Ram Bahadur Singh Revisionist v. The State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 64
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 617 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-bahadur-singh-revisionist-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-51722
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection
of
Children)
Act,
2015
-
3 All. Ram Bahadur Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
65
Sections 2(14), 27, 29, 30, 36, 37, 40, 101
& 104 - Revisionist (alleged father-in-law)
challenged CWC order (09.02.2023) directing a
juvenile victim girl to be kept in a Women
Protection Home, Prayagraj, and appellate
court's order (08.01.2024) dismissing his appeal
under Section 101 at admission stage. Victim,
recovered after an FIR under Section 363 IPC,
was declared a child in need of care and
protection under Section 2(14) as her family
refused custody. CWC's order lacked proper
inquiry under Section 36 and social investigation
report, deemed superficial. Revisionist, not
having applied for custody before CWC, was not
an aggrieved person but permitted to apply
under Section 104 for amendment of CWC's
order. Appellate court's dismissal, citing lack of
jurisdiction under Section 27(10), was erroneous
as Section 101 allows appeals to Children's
Court for all CWC orders except those related to
foster care or sponsorship aftercare. Appellate
order set aside, revisionist granted opportunity
to apply to CWC, which must decide within one
month, uninfluenced by court observations.
CWC's
superficial
approach
criticized,
emphasizing principles of best interest, family
responsibility, safety, and restoration under
Section 3. Revision disposed of with directions
for circulation to District Judiciary and CWC for
guidance. (Paras 5-18)

Revision Disposed of .

Case Law Cited:

## Text

64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the name of her brothers are Swagat and
Pradeep. The revisionist no. 1 also deposed
that since opposite party no. 2 had married
another woman, she is not prepared to live
along with her. From the analysis of the
above oral and documentary evidence, it
can be concluded that due to harassment
and cruelty met by Pinki Vishwakarma
from Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma and his
family members and his marrying another
woman, she is living separately from him.
Therefore, it cannot be concluded that she
is staying separately from Ashok Kumar
Vishwakarma without any reason. Thus,
finding in this regard arrived at by the trial
court is perverse and cannot be accepted.

20. From the perusal of the impugned
judgement and order, it transpires that the
trial court has not given any finding on the
income of Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma.
The trial court has rejected the application
u/s 125 Cr.P.C. merely on the basis of
above-mentioned three grounds that firstly,
revisionist no. 1 was pregnant at the time of
her marriage to opposite party no. 2,
secondly, revisionist no. 2, Vaishnavi is the
daughter born from the wedlock of
revisionist no. 1 and opposite party no. 2
and thirdly, revisionist no. 1 is living
separately from her husband without any
reason, therefore, she is entitled for
maintenance.

21. From the above discussion of the
evidence on record, the Court is of the
considered view that illegality has been
committed by the trial court by rejecting
the misc. case and application u/s 125
Cr.P.C. by the impugned order. The
impugned order is liable to be rejected.

22. Accordingly, the criminal revision
is allowed. The impugned judgement and
order dated 06.12.2022 passed by learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghazipur, is
hereby set-aside.

23. This Court is of the view that the
trial court be directed to order afresh on
application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. in the light of
the observations made in this judgement
and after ascertaining the income of
opposite party no. 2, pass order for
maintenance
allowance
in
favour
of
revisionist nos. 1 and 2 according to law.
The trial court shall direct both the parties
to submit affidavit regarding their income
in the light of the directions given by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha
and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 within
one month and decide the application u/s
125 Cr.P.C. within a period of 4 months.
The parties shall appear in the trial court on
15.03.2024.

24. The copy of the judgement be
forthwith sent to the trial court for
compliance.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 64
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.02.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 617 of 2024

Ram Bahadur Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Dan Bahadur, Sri Nand Lal Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection
of
Children)
Act,
2015
-
3 All. Ram Bahadur Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
65
Sections 2(14), 27, 29, 30, 36, 37, 40, 101
& 104 - Revisionist (alleged father-in-law)
challenged CWC order (09.02.2023) directing a
juvenile victim girl to be kept in a Women
Protection Home, Prayagraj, and appellate
court's order (08.01.2024) dismissing his appeal
under Section 101 at admission stage. Victim,
recovered after an FIR under Section 363 IPC,
was declared a child in need of care and
protection under Section 2(14) as her family
refused custody. CWC's order lacked proper
inquiry under Section 36 and social investigation
report, deemed superficial. Revisionist, not
having applied for custody before CWC, was not
an aggrieved person but permitted to apply
under Section 104 for amendment of CWC's
order. Appellate court's dismissal, citing lack of
jurisdiction under Section 27(10), was erroneous
as Section 101 allows appeals to Children's
Court for all CWC orders except those related to
foster care or sponsorship aftercare. Appellate
order set aside, revisionist granted opportunity
to apply to CWC, which must decide within one
month, uninfluenced by court observations.
CWC's
superficial
approach
criticized,
emphasizing principles of best interest, family
responsibility, safety, and restoration under
Section 3. Revision disposed of with directions
for circulation to District Judiciary and CWC for
guidance. (Paras 5-18)

Revision Disposed of .

Case Law Cited:

1. Smt. Soni Saxena @ Neetu Saxena Vs St. of
U.P., Criminal Revision No. 6033/2023 (Para 10)

2.
Girish
Kumar
Vs
St.
of
U.P.,
2022:AHC:206879 (Paras 11, 12)

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

1. Heard Sri Nand Lal Yadav, learned
counsel for the revisionist and Sri L.D.
Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2. By means of this criminal revision,
the revisionist Ram Bahadur Singh has
challenged an order passed by the C.W.C.
dated 09.02.2023 by which victim girl, a
juvenile has been ordered to be kept in a
'woman protection home' and further an
order passed by the appellate court dated
08.01.2024, whereby the appeal moved by
the instant revisionist under Section 101 of
J. J. Act, 2015 was dismissed at the stage of
admission.

3. The relevant facts are that an F.I.R.
came to be lodged against unknown person
as regard missing of 15 year old daughter
of the first informant under Section 363
I.P.C. The girl was recovered and was
produced before the C.W.C. The C.W.C.
enquired into the matter and found that her
family members refused to appear before
the C.W.C. for her custody and, therefore,
with an unanimous opinion, she was
directed to be kept in a Women Protection
Home at Prayagraj. Ram Bahadur Singh
filed an appeal challenging the aforesaid
order under Section 101 of the J.J. Act,
2015.

4. The main submissions of the
revisionist are:- First that he is father-inlaw of the detenue and that because her
husband (i.e. his son) has been chargesheeted and is facing trial in the instant
case, therefore, she may be released from
protection home into his custody; In the
given circumstances he is better entitled to
claim her custody and that her welfare can
only be looked after by him; and that her
own parents never came forward to take her
into their custody; and that the girl herself
wanted to remain in her in-law's family. It
is further submitted that she did not give
any evidence against her husband and that
she does not face any threats from him and
that CWC ignored all the facts and
circumstances of the matter and passed an
order of sending her to a protection home
in an arbitrary manner. It is contended in
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
addition that the appeal filed by her fatherin-law Ram Bahadur Singh has been
dismissed without taking into account the
relevant facts and circumstances and that
the appellate court passed the order in a
mechanical manner.

5. Before any legal or factual issue is
considered in this matter, it is important to
notice that the instant revisionist- alleged
father-in-law of the detenue, admittedly
never moved any application before the
C.W.C,
for
obtaining
her
custody.
Obviously this question arises that when he
did not move any application to obtain her
custody, how can he be treated as an
aggrieved person and therefore, whether
any appeal could have been filed by him
challenging the impugned order passed by
the C.W.C.? At this stage I prefer to leave
aside such issues and deal with certain
other issues of greater importance arising in
this case.

6. The J.J. Act, 2015 is a
comprehensive act dealing with two types
of juveniles first those who are treated as
"child in conflict with law", secondly,
those who are treated as "child in need of
care and protection".

Certain things are noticeable viz.-
:

• Separate chapters deal with two
types of children. The Chapter VI of the J.J.
Act, 2015 has provisions which specifically
apply to latter type i.e. "child in need of
care and protection".

• When a child shall be treated as
a 'child in need of care and protection' is
provided in section 2 (14) of the Act which
broadly provides that any child who has
parents or guardian and such parents and
guardian are found to be unfit to take care
for and protect the safety and well being of
a child or where a child does not have
parents and no one is willing to take care of
him/her, or where a child has been or is
being or is likely to be abused, tortured or
exploited for the purpose of sexual abuse or
illegal acts, may also be treated as child in
care of need and protection, besides
children falling in several other categories.

• The Child Welfare Committees
have been constituted for children in need
of care and protection under the Act.

• Chapter VI of the J.J. Act, 2015
provides for procedure beginning from
production of such child before such a
committee and also provides for procedure
to hold inquiry under section 36 of the J.J.
Act, 2015 and the orders which may be
passed with regard to such a child under
section 37 of the J.J. Act, 2015.

•
Section
37
of
the
Act
importantly provides that the committee, on
being satisfied on the basis of inquiry held
by it, declare that a child is in need of care
and protection.

• The committee has power to
place the child in a protection home of the
nature as provided in section 37 of the J.J.
Act, 2015 and it may also restore the child
to parents or guardians or family with or
without supervision of Child Welfare
Officer. Further the Committee has power
to restore the child in need of care and
protection to his parents, guardian or fit
person
as
the
case
may
be,
after
determining suitability of the parents or
guardian or fit person and give them
suitable directions as provided in section 40
of the Act.

•
Another
very
important
provision is under section 104 of the J.J.
Act, 2015. Section 104 of the J.J. Act is as
below:

Section 104- Power of the
Committee or the Board to amend its own
orders.
3 All. Ram Bahadur Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
67

"(1) Without prejudice to the
provisions
for
appeal
and
revision
contained in this Act, the Committee or
the Board may, on an application received
in this behalf, amend any orders passed by
itself, as to the institution to which a child
is to be sent or as to the person under
whose care or supervision a child is to be
placed under this Act:

Provided that during the course
of hearing for amending any such orders,
there shall be at least two members of the
Board of which one shall be the Principal
Magistrate and at least three members of
the Committee and all persons concerned,
or their authorised representatives, whose
views shall be heard by the Committee or
the Board, as the case may be, before the
said orders are amended.

(2) Clerical mistakes in orders
passed by the Committee or the Board or
errors arising therein from any accidental
slip or omission may, at any time, be
corrected by the Committee or the Board,
as the case may be, either on its own
motion or on an application received in
this behalf."

7. This is quite significant to note that
this provision gives very wide and ample
powers to the committee to amend its own
order, wherever required, for any good
reason which, in my opinion, may include
change in circumstances. Section 104 of the
J.J. Act, 2015 prescribes a procedure before
an order already passed can be amended. It
says that "all persons concerned" or their
authorised representatives shall be heard by
the committee before such an order is
amended.

8. A bare look on the relevant
provisions of the J.J. Act, 2015, gives an
impression
that
any
detention
in
a
protection home, of a child in need of care
and protection is purely temporary in
nature and rightly so. This fact should not
be relegated to the background that the J.J.
Act, 2015 has been enacted keeping in
mind the general principles, as have been
enumerated in Chapter II of the Act itself.
The
general
principles
include
the
principles of best interest, principle of
family responsibility, principles of safety,
principle of institutionalization, principle
of repatriation and restoration. All the
aforesaid principles are guiding factors for
the Board as well as for the C.W.C. while
implementing the provisions of this Act.
These principles may act as a becon light
while considering and deciding upon the
matter of lodging a child, particularly a
child in need of care and protection, in a
juvenile home or when releasing her/him in
care or custody of any suitable person or a
family member. In my opinion the
committee is expected to take a reasoned
decision, after due deliberations as regard
where it would be best suited to lodge a
"child in need of care and protection" in the
facts and circumstances of a case and that
where his best interest shall be served and
therefore, which institution or which
person/family member shall be in better
position to take care of his well being. The
C.W.C. may also review or revise its own
order where circumstances prompt for such
an action or where any new development
takes place, compelling it to take a different
stand/view. Such powers have been vested
in C.W.C., notwithstanding the powers of
appellate court or the revisional court. I
hasten to add that this is not to say that
appellate court or the revisional court can
not exercise its powers wherever it can and
ought to.

9. There are several significant issues
involved and mixed up in this matter which
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
need to disentangled for future guidance of
all concerned.

• First, the alleged father-in-lawthe instant revisionist never moved any
application before the C.W.C. either before
passing of the impugned order dated
09.02.2023 or after the same, hence, the
C.W.C. obviously could not decide the
matter in the light of his submissions. In
my opinion there is no bar for him to apply
to C.W.C., even if he had no opportunity to
move such an application, before impugned
order was passed. Still, in case, such an
application is now moved, the same can be
decided in the light of provisions of Section
104 of the J.J. Act, 2015.

• Secondly, I am constrained to
notice that the impugned order has been
passed by the C.W.C. in a most superficial,
cursory and cavalier manner. No proper
inquiry has been made as is enjoined upon
the C.W.C by law. In my opinion the
C.W.C. is enjoined by law to conduct
proper enquiry as provided in section 36
and then pass an order under section 37 of
the J.J. 2015. It may also be noted that no
social investigation report appears to have
been submitted before the Committee for
passing a final order as is required by
section 36 (2) of the J.J. Act, 2015.

• In a number of cases, coming
before this Court this is being noted that
C.W.C.
is
passing
superficial
orders
without conducting proper inquiry and
disposing of the matters with nonchalance.
The custody or detention of victim in a
protection home are not trivial matters. The
very first requirement is to declare him/her
as a child in need of care and protection
and second is to conduct a proper enquiry
as regard his/her lodgement or care and
custody keeping in mind the need and
suitability of juvenile home/person to
whom he/she is entrusted.

• Next important question which
cannot be ignored is as regard the
jurisdiction of the appellate court as
provided under section 101 of J.J. Act,
2015. In this case the appeal has been
dismissed at the stage of admission by
passing a cryptic order as below:

" किशोर न्याय (बालिों िी देखरेख और
संरक्षण) अकिकियम 2015 िी िारा 101 िे अन्तर्गत
पोषण, देखरेख एवं प्रवतगिता संबंिी किकवश्चयों िे कसवाय
अपील किला मकिस्ट्रेट िो होिे िा प्राकविाि किया र्या है।
इस संदर्ग में कियम 27 िे अन्तर्गत बाल िल्याण सकमकत िे
आदेश कवकिश्चय िे कवरूद्ध अपील किला मकिस्ट्रेट िे समक्ष
होिे िा प्राकविाि किया र्या है।

बाल िल्याण सकमकत प्रयार्राि द्वारा मामला
संख्या- 1979/2022/23 िे संदर्ग में अपील सुिे िािे िा
क्षेत्राकििार किला मकिस्ट्रेट िो होिे िे संदर्ग में मुन्सररम
आख्या प्रस्ट्तुत िी र्यी है।

उपरोक्त तथ्यों िे आिार पर आवेदि िी ओर
से प्रस्ट्तुत प्रिरण िो अंर्ीिरण िे स्ट्तर पर किस्ट्ताररत किया
िाता है।"

10. During my working, I have come
across a number of such orders where
appeals have been dismissed referring to
Section 27 of J.J. Act 2015. A similar
question arose before this Court in Smt.
Soni Saxena @ Neetu Saxena vs. State of
U.P. and 4 other, Criminal Revision
No.6033 of 2023. The Court observed in
paras 4 and 5 as below-:

"4. The appellate court seems to
have passed the order in the light of the
provisions of section 27(10) of the J.J. Act,
2015.
Section
27
deals
with
the
Constitution
of
the
Child
Welfare
Committee, the qualifications of a person
as regard eligibility of the person to be
appointed as a member of a Committee,
disqualifications,
the
tenure
of
the
members, the procedure for inquiry as
regard termination of the members etc.
Section 27(10) of the J.J. Act, 2015
3 All. Ram Bahadur Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
69
empowers the District Magistrate to
entertain any grievance arising out of
functioning of a Committee. This section
further empowers the affected child or any
one connected with the child, as the case
may be, to file a complaint before the
District Magistrate for the purpose that he
may take suitable action as regard the
complaints or the grievances which an
affected person may have against the
Committee. These provisions definitely do
not deal with legal challenge to the orders
passed by the Committee. An aggrieved
person can challenge the order passed by
the Child Welfare Committee under section
101 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

Section- 101 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2015 is as below:-

"(1) Subject to the provisions of
this Act, any person aggrieved by an order
made by the Committee or the Board under
this Act may, within thirty days from the
date of such order, prefer an appeal to the
"Children's Court", except for decisions
by the Committee related to Foster Care
and Sponsorship After Care for which the
appeal
shall
lie
with
the
District
Magistrate."

11. Faced with a similar case, this
Court in Girish Kumar vs. State of U.P.
and 3 Others, 2022:AHC:206879 decided
on 25.11.2022, with reference to provisions
of section 101 of the J.J. Act, 2015,
observed in Para no. 6 as below:-

"6. It is quite clear from this
provision of law that appeal shall lie to the
District
Magistrate
with
respect
to
decisions by the Child Welfare Committee
relating to foster care and sponsorship
after care only. The appeal in respect of
other orders passed by the Child Welfare
Committee shall lie to the 'Children's
Court' within 30 days from the date of
order. Before analysing this provision, it
will be appropriate to peruse the order
passed by the Child Welfare Committee to
decide upon whether this order falls in the
category where the appeal may lie to
Children's Court or in the category where
appeal shall lie to District Magistrate."

12. In the same case this court further
observed in Para nos. 10 and 11 as below:-

"10. I went through the material
on record in the light of submissions
before this Court. As per scheme of the
Juvenile Justice Act, the Child Welfare
Committee, irrespective of any other law,
has power to deal exclusively with all
proceedings relating to 'children in need
of care and protection' under Section-29
of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The
functions
and
responsibilities
of
Committee include taking cognizance of
and receiving the child produced before it,
conducting inquiry on all issues relating
to safety and well being of a child as well
as ensuring care, protection, appropriate
rehabilitation
and
most
importantly
restoration of 'children in need of care
and protection' (Section-30 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2015). Section-37 of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 empowers the
Committee, after being satisfied through
an
inquiry,
consideration
of
social
investigation report submitted by Child
Welfare Officer and taking into account
the child's wishes, in case the child is
sufficiently matured, to take a view and
pass one or more of following order,
namely:-

(a) declaration that a child is in
need of care and protection;

(b) restoration of the child to
parents or guardian or family with or
without supervision of Child Welfare
Officer or designated social worker;
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(c) placement of the child in
Children's Home
or fit
facility
or
Specialized Adoption Agency for the
purpose of adoption for long term or
temporary care, keeping in mind the
capacity of the institution for housing
such children, either after reaching the
conclusion that the family of the child
cannot be traced or even if traced,
restoration of the child to the family is not
in the best interest of the child;

(d) placement of the child with
fit person for long term or temporary care;

(e) foster care orders under
section 44;

(f) sponsorship orders under
section 45;

(g) ........;

(h) .........

10. On perusal of the above
provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, it
is
demonstrated
that
Child
Welfare
Committee is given vast powers on the
principles of best interest of a child, a
thread which goes through the whole of
the scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015. It has been specifically provided by
the section-3 of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015 that Central Government, State
Governments,
the
Board
and
other
agencies, as the case may be, while
implementing the provisions of the Act,
shall be guided by the fundamental
principles which include principles of best
interest,
principle
of
family
responsibilities, the principle of safety, the
principles of repatriation and restoration
and several others.

11. The provisions of law as
aforesaid are being reproduced here with
the twin object; firstly, that when an order
is passed of the7 nature as is under
challenge before this Court, the appeal
shall be entertainable by the Children's
Court and not by the District Magistrate;
the District Magistrate is empowered to
hear appeals only against the decisions of
the Committee relating to foster care and
sponsorship after care. The order in
question does not fall in this category. The
appellate court was thus wrong in holding
that appeal did not lie before it. Therefore,
the impugned order is liable to be setaside; secondly, it may be noted that when
a child in need of care and protection is
lodged in any shelter home, it is a measure
of temporary nature; the Child Welfare
Committee is fully empowered to take a
decision where it is found no more
necessary to detain her. It may be noted
that legally a child in need of care and
protection may be detained for a further
period even if he/she has attained majority
if it is found that it will not be in his/her
best
interest
to
release
him/her
immediately."

13. The learned appellate court
instead of deciding the matter on merits,
declined to exercise its powers on patently
wrong assumptions. It is difficult to
understand how such a view has been taken
by the appellate court that it had no
jurisdiction to hear the challenge to an
order of this nature passed by the Child
Welfare Committee, in appeal. As is quite
obvious, an appeal shall lie to children
court against all the orders passed by the
Child Welfare Committee except where
order has been passed relating to foster care
or sponsorship foster care.

14. In view of the legal provisions as
mentioned above, the revisionist is granted
opportunity to move an application before
the C.W.C. In case, such an application is
moved, the C.W.C. shall decide the same in
accordance with law, preferably within a
month of moving such an application. It is
made very clear that this Court has not
3 All. Urmila Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
71
touched upon merit of the claim of the
applicant/revisionist in any manner. The
C.W.C.
shall
decide
the
matter
uninfluenced by observations, if any, made
on facts, by this Court as regard his claim.

15. As the revisionist has been given
opportunity to move a fresh application
before the C.W.C. hence, there is no need
to set aside the earlier order passed by the
C.W.C., however, as far as order passed by
the appellate court is concerned, it is
patently against law, hence, it is set aside.

16. Accordingly, this revision is
finally disposed of.

17. The copy of this order be
transmitted to CWC concerned.

18. Let a copy of this order be
circulated for the benefit of District
Judiciary and also to C.W.C. for necessary
guidance.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 71
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1012 of 2023

Urmila Devi ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ankit Agarval, Sri Dilip Kumar Patel

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law -Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 319 & 397 - Summoning
Additional Accused - Revision Against Rejection
of Application - Revisionist challenged trial
court's order (05.12.2022) rejecting application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon Mohit
Mandal, Krishna Mandal, and Sheela Devi in S.T.
No. 631/2018 (arising from Case Crime No.
301/2017, Sections 306, 506 IPC) for abetment
to suicide of revisionist's son, Manoj Kumar. FIR
alleged that co-accused Khudiram and proposed
accused extorted money, took free goods from
deceased's shop, and defamed him, leading to
his suicide by hanging on 22.10.2016. Trial
court, after evaluating depositions of P.W.1
(scribe), P.W.2 (doctor), P.W.3 (revisionistmother), and P.W.4 (father), found insufficient
evidence of instigation by proposed accused,
noting inconsistencies in claims of financial
demands and lack of positive assertion of
abetment. Supreme Court rulings in Hardeep
Singh Vs St. of Punj. (2014) 3 SCC 92, S.
Mohammad Ispahani Vs Yogendra Chandak
(2017) 16 SCC 226, Rajesh Vs St. of Har. (2019)
6 SCC 368, and Yashodhan Singh Vs St. of U.P.
(2023) 9 SCC 108 clarify that Section 319
Cr.P.C. requires evidence stronger than a prima
facie
case
but
short
of
conviction-level
satisfaction, and can be based on examinationin-chief or material collected before trial. Trial
court's reasoned order, finding no cogent
evidence against proposed accused, upheld as
no illegality or irregularity found. Revision
dismissed. (Paras 3-17)
Revision Dismissed.

Case Law Cited:
1. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9
SCC 460 (Paras 8, 9)

2. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punj., (2014) 3 SCC
92 (Paras 10, 11, 12, 15)

3.
S.
Mohammad
Ispahani
Vs
Yogendra
Chandak, (2017) 16 SCC 226 (Para 13)

4. Rajesh Vs St. of Har., (2019) 6 SCC 368 (Para
14)

5. Yashodhan Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2023) 9 SCC
108 (Para 15)

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