# Reena & Anr. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 212
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 5252 of 2022
- **Bench:** Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/reena-anr-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50408
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 323,325,504 & 506 -The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 397/401 - Revision - Section 319 -
Power to proceed against other persons
appearing to be guilty of offence - Apex
Court's test for invoking powers under
section 319 Cr.P.C. - only when strong
and cogent evidence occurs against a
person the power should be exercised -
test to be applied is one which is more
than prima facie Case, which is applied at
the time of framing of charge - statement
of witnesses to the Investigating Officer
under section 161Cr.P.C. cannot be relied
upon in recording finding that accused
sought to be tried could not have been
present at the scene of occurrence - it
must appear to the court on the evidence
that someone not arrayed as accused
appears to have committed an offence -
court need not be satisfied that he has
committed an offence - need only appear
to it that he has committed an offence.
(Para - 8)

F.I.R. accuses revisionists and others
of
assaulting - injured - medical reports part of
record
-
injured
supported
allegations
-
involvement
of
revisionists
in
incident
-
Investigating Officer exculpated revisionists
based on villagers' statements - injured witness
reiterated her statements about the revisionists'
involvement - prosecution claims all accused
persons assaulted causing injuries - Application
moved by first informant/ prosecution - under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Magistrate summoned
revisionists - to face trial with co-accused for
offence - hence instant revision.(Para - 2,7)

HELD:-There is sufficient and cogent evidence
on record 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 un-rebutted would lead to
conviction and it passes the test as laid down by
the Apex Court. Sufficient ground to summon
revisionist accused U/s 319 Cr.P.C. No illegality
or infirmity in the impugned summoning
order.(Para - 9,10)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and circumstances of the case and gravity
of offence. Hon'ble Apex Court, as
discussed above, has held that undue
harshness should be avoided taking into
account
the
reformative
approach
underlying in criminal justice system.

30. In the above backdrop of legal
scenario it is mentioned that in the present
appeal, the trial court convicting the
appellant, sentenced him for ten years
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.
15,000/-, under Section 3(1) of Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

31. As discussed above, learned counsel
for the appellant did not challenge the
conviction of the appellant but only prayed the
court to reduce the sentence to the period
already undergone a Xerox copy is submitted
by the learned counsel for appellant is on
record. He submits that the FIR has been lodged
against him on 6.11.2014. As per the custody
certificate, issued on 15.3.2023, by Jail
Superintendent, Bareilly, the appellant has
actually languishing in jail including remission
for a period of 9 years, 4 months and 12 days,
about a decade on that date however, on the
date of judgment he is in incarceration about 9
years and 7 months. Thus the appellant is at
the verge of almost completing his term of
sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant
also submitted that the appellant is an
youngster of about 35 years. He was in jail for
such a long period but no adverse conduct has
been
reported
by
jail
Superintendent,
concerned. Thus, there are fair chances of
reformation of the accused and to join the
mainstream of social milieu and to contribute
towards developments of the society. In these
circumstance, reduction of his sentence to the
period of already undergone, will serve the
ends of justice.

32. Resultantly, the instant appeal is
partly allowed with following directions:-

(i) The judgment of the learned trial
court dated 16.5.2019 regarding conviction of
the appellant is confirmed and shall remain
intact.

(ii) In respect of his sentence of ten
years rigorous Imprisonment awarded by the
learned trial court is modified to the period
already undergone by the appellant.

(iii) The amount of fine of Rs.
15,000/- imposed and its default period, shall
remain intact.

(iv) The appellant be released
immediately, accordingly.

(v) Appellant shall deposit, if not
already deposited, the entire amount of fine
within four months from the date of this
judgment.

(vi) A copy of judgment be sent to
trial Court concerned, for necessary information
and compliance.

(vii) Trial court's record be remitted
back forthwith.

(viii) A sum of Rs. 5,000/- be
provided to the learned Amicus Curiae Sri
Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for rendering
his valuable help to the Court.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 212
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5252 of 2022

Reena & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
7 All. Reena & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
213
Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, Sri Pankaj
Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Sanjay Mishra

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 323,325,504 & 506 -The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 397/401 - Revision - Section 319 -
Power to proceed against other persons
appearing to be guilty of offence - Apex
Court's test for invoking powers under
section 319 Cr.P.C. - only when strong
and cogent evidence occurs against a
person the power should be exercised -
test to be applied is one which is more
than prima facie Case, which is applied at
the time of framing of charge - statement
of witnesses to the Investigating Officer
under section 161Cr.P.C. cannot be relied
upon in recording finding that accused
sought to be tried could not have been
present at the scene of occurrence - it
must appear to the court on the evidence
that someone not arrayed as accused
appears to have committed an offence -
court need not be satisfied that he has
committed an offence - need only appear
to it that he has committed an offence.
(Para - 8)

F.I.R. accuses revisionists and others
of
assaulting - injured - medical reports part of
record
-
injured
supported
allegations
-
involvement
of
revisionists
in
incident
-
Investigating Officer exculpated revisionists
based on villagers' statements - injured witness
reiterated her statements about the revisionists'
involvement - prosecution claims all accused
persons assaulted causing injuries - Application
moved by first informant/ prosecution - under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Magistrate summoned
revisionists - to face trial with co-accused for
offence - hence instant revision.(Para - 2,7)

HELD:-There is sufficient and cogent evidence
on record 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 un-rebutted would lead to
conviction and it passes the test as laid down by
the Apex Court. Sufficient ground to summon
revisionist accused U/s 319 Cr.P.C. No illegality
or infirmity in the impugned summoning
order.(Para - 9,10)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hardeep Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj. & ors.,
2014 0 Supreme (SC) 27

2. Periyasami & ors. Vs S. Nallasamy, 2019 0
Supreme (SC) 284

3. Rajendra Singh Vs St. of U.P. , A.I.R. 2007 SC
2786

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

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by
learned counsel for the revisionists is taken
on record.

2. Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh,
learned counsel for the revisionists, learned
AGA for the State and Sri Sanjay Mishra,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/
first informant.

3. This criminal revision has been filed
against the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by
A.C.J.M. Court No.1, Etawah in Criminal
Case No.623 of 2012 (State Vs. Balram and
others) arising out of Case Crime No.633 of
2009, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506
I.P.C., P.S. Bharthana, District Etawah. By
the impugned order, the learned Magistrate in
exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
on application of first informant/ prosecution
has summoned the revisionists to face trial
with co-accused for offence under Sections
323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C.

4. The opposite party no.2 i.e. Anuj
Kumar lodged an F.I.R. on 27.12.2009 at 9
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a.m. alleging therein that on 27.12.2009 at
about 7 a.m. Ram Sakhi Devi, the mother
and Pramod Kumar, the brother of the
complainant were collecting cow dungs
then Balram Singh, Smt. Gopshree, Ruby
and Reena started scuffle with the mother
and brother of the complainant and they
assaulted them causing head injury to his
mother, her left hand was also fractured,
bleeding started from her head. The left
hand of Pramod Kumar was also fractured.
Omkar Singh and Rukum Singh saved her.
The accused persons fled from the spot
abusing and extending life threat. After
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
only against Balram Singh and Smt.
Gopshree. The revisionists, Rubi and Reena
were
exonerated.
During
trial,
after
examination of Anuj Kumar as P.W.1 and
Ram Sakhi as P.W.2, an application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the
prosecution which has been allowed by the
impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists
contended that there are general allegations
in the F.I.R. and no specific role has been
assigned to the revisionists-accused. All the
members
of
the
family
have
been
implicated whereas no specific role has
been assigned to anyone. The Investigating
Officer has recorded the statements of
independent witnesses who have stated that
both the girls (revisionists) were school
going and had gone to attend the school.
After considering the witnesses and other
evidence, the Investigating Officer has
come
to
the
conclusion
that
the
involvement of the revisionists was not
found, therefore, they were exonerated
from the charge-sheet. It is further
contended that injured, Ram Sakhi/ P.W.2
has suffered one lacerated wound on
forehead, one contusion on right arm and
one lacerated wound on wrist joint. In her
X-ray report, fracture of right arm has been
detected. The other injured, Pramod Kumar
has suffered one lacerated wound, one
contusion and one abrasion. His X-ray
report is NAD. Therefore, the allegations of
the F.I.R. are totally false and concocted. It
is further contended that complainant, Anuj
Kumar/ P.W.1 is not an eye-witness of the
incident, he has not stated anything about
the involvement of the revisionists-accused
in the F.I.R. The learned Magistrate only
on the statement of Ram Sakhi/ P.W.2 has
summoned the revisionists in a mechanical
manner. At the time of incident, the
revisionists were minor and as per High
School Certificate-cum-Marksheet, the date
of birth of revisionist no.1 is 10.08.1996
and as per High School Marksheet, the date
of birth of revisionist no.2 is 11.10.1993.
The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
has been moved with malafide intention
only to disturb the matrimonial lives of
revisionists who are now married. It is also
contended that the impugned order is
against the evidence and materials available
on record. The learned trial Court has
committed manifest illegalities which is
apparent on the face of the record. It is also
contended that the Apex Court in so many
cases has held that power to summon under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary
power which should be exercised in
exceptional cases where the situation so
warrants. The degree of satisfaction is more
than that of prima facie case. The learned
trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
passing the impugned order. No finding has
been recorded by the learned Magistrate
that on the basis of evidence available on
record there is the possibility of conviction
of revisionists. Therefore, the order is
erroneous and not sustainable. The learned
Magistrate placed reliance on the following
case laws:- (i) Hardeep Singh & others Vs.
State of Punjab & others 2014 0 Supreme
7 All. Reena & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
215
(SC) 27 and (ii) Periyasami & others Vs.
S. Nallasamy 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 284.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite
parties submitted that the revisionists are
named in the F.I.R. with clear allegation
that they were also present at the place of
incident and took part in the commission of
the offence. They assaulted Ram Sakhi/
P.W.2 and Pramod Kumar causing them
injuries. The complainant- Anuj Kumar and
both the injured in their statements during
investigation
have
corroborated
the
allegations
of
the
F.I.R.
but
the
Investigating Officer in an unfair manner
just to benefit the revisionists- accused has
ignored it and exonerated them. Both Ram
Sakhi/ P.W.2 and Pramod Kumar received
injuries in this incident. Injury of Ram
Sakhi/ P.W.2 is grievous in nature. The
complainant,
Anuj
Kumar
has
been
examined as P.W.1 while injured Ram
Sakhi was examined as P.W.2 and they
have again corroborated the allegations of
the F.I.R. in their deposition before the
Court. So there is sufficient evidence on
record against the revisionists and the
learned trial Court has rightly passed the
impugned order. There is no illegality in
the impugned order.

7. The revisionists are named as
accused in the F.I.R. There are allegations
that the revisionists-accused with other
named accused of F.I.R. assaulted Pramod
Kumar and Ram Sakhi/ P.W.2, the brother
and mother of the complainant. Pramod
Kumar and Ram Sakhi were injured and
they were medically examined and their
medical reports are part of the record. Ram
Sakhi/ P.W.2 has suffered grievous injury
in right forearm in the form of fracture. The
complainant may not be an eye-witness of
the incident but the two injured Pramod
Kumar and Ram Sakhi, both in their
statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. have supported the allegations of
the F.I.R. and have stated about the
involvement of the revisionists-accused in
the
incident
with
co-accused.
The
Investigating Officer on the basis of
statements of some villagers has exculpated
the revisionists-accused. One of the injured
witness, Ram Sakhi has been examined
before the trial Court as P.W.2, she has
reiterated her previous statements and has
stated
about
the
involvement
of
revisionists-accused in the incident. It is the
prosecution case that all the accused
persons holding lathi, danda assaulted Ram
Sakhi and Pramod Kumar causing them
injuries.

8. The test laid down by the Apex
Court for invoking powers under section
319 Cr.P.C. inter alia includes the principle
that only when strong and cogent evidence
occurs against a person the power should
be exercised. The test to be applied is one
which is more than prima facie Case, which
is applied at the time of framing of charge.
The Apex Court in Rajendra Singh versus
State of UP A.I.R. 2007 SC 2786 has held
that the statement of witnesses to the
Investigating
Officer
under
section
161Cr.P.C. cannot be relied upon in
recording finding that accused sought to be
tried could not have been present at the
scene of occurrence. It is further held that it
must appear to the court on the evidence
that someone not arrayed as accused
appears to have committed an offence. The
court need not be satisfied that he has
committed an offence. It need only appear
to it that he has committed an offence.

9. So applying the test laid down by
the Apex Court on the present set of facts,
it is clear that there is strong evidence than
mere probability of the revisionist accused
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the form of testimony of injured witness.
In comparison to it, the evidence on the
basis of which the Investigating Officer has
exonerated the revisionist accused is of a
very weak nature. There is sufficient and
cogent evidence on record 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 un-rebutted would lead to conviction
and it passes the test as laid down by the
Apex Court.

10. The learned trial court with a
detailed and reasoned order has allowed the
application. The learned trial court has
narrated the entire facts, evidence and other
material available on record and after
analyzing it, has come to the finding that
there is sufficient ground to summon the
revisionist accused U/s 319 Cr.P.C. There
is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
summoning order.

11. Accordingly, the revision is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 216
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

FAFO No. 795 of 2002

Brahma Nand Maurya ...Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S.N. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Amresh Sinha, Sri Anubhav Sinha

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988-
Sections
173-
enhancement
of
compensation- has suffered a serious
disability in which he has suffered a loss
of his leg - The head of his left femur had
been badly fractured on account of the
injury-During
the
ensuing
surgical
operation, the femur head was removed,
which is attached to the hip joint. In
consequence, the claimant's leg was
shortened by an inch and a half-This
caused the claimant considerable difficulty
in movement-The middle finger of his
right hand was bent. The hip joint was
dislocated because its head was fracturedUpon an application of Rule 220-A(3) of
the Rules of 1998 to the facts here, the
claimant being aged 47 years i.e. in the
age bracket of 40-50 years, an addition of
30%
towards
future
prospects
and
applied
multiplier
of
13
the
total
compensation
awarded
enhanced
to
Rs.7,72,149-The impugned award passed
by the Tribunal is modified and sum of
money shall carry simple interest at the
rate of 7% per annum from the date of
institution of the claim petition, until
realization.(Para 1 to 33)

B. In making the computation in the
present case, the court must be mindful of
the fact that the appellant has suffered a
serious disability in which he has suffered
a loss of the use of both his hands. For a
person engaged in manual activities, it
requires no stretch of imagination to
understand that a loss of hands is a
complete deprivation of the ability to
earn. Nothing - at least in the facts of this
case - can restore lost hands. But the
measure of compensation must reflect a
genuine attempt of the law to restore the
dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of
compensation should not be so abysmal as
to lead one to question whether our law
values human life. If it does, as it must, it
must provide a realistic recompense for
the pain of loss and the trauma of
suffering. Awards of compensation are not
law's doles. In a discourse of rights, they