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

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1119
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 5082 of 2022
- **Bench:** Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sachin-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-49802
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

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

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Sachin & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1119

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

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

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5082 of 2022

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

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

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

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

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

2. St. of M.P. Vs Man Singh (2003) 10 SCC 414

3. Abdul Sayeed Vs St. of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC
259

4. St. of U. P. Vs Naresh (2011) 4 SCC 324

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

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

2. This criminal revision is filed
against the order dated 30.10.2022 passed
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Case
No. 1604 of 2021 (State Vs. Rahul and
others) Case Crime No. 298 of 2020, P.S.
Singhawali, District Baghpat. By the
impugned order learned Magistrate has
summoned the revisionists under section
319 Cr.P.C. to face trial for the offence
under section 323, 504, 506 and 354 IPC.

3. The FIR of this case was lodged on
21.9.2020 at 14:40 hours with regard to the
incident dated 15.9.2020 at about 6:30 p.m.
Besides other avermnts it is alleged in the
FIR that seven accused persons namely
Ramesh, Chachin, Smt. Ram Bhateri,
Manish, Smt. Sheela, Vilendra and Smt.
Suneeta with common intention and armed
with Lathi, Danda, country made pistol and
sharp edged weapons entered into the
house of the first informant and started to
assault first informant and his son Charchil
causing them injuries. They also torn the
clothes of the first informant and threatened
her with death. The first informant and her
son received injuries in this incident and
they were medically examined. After
investigation charge-sheet was submitted
only against Smt. Sheela, Smt. Ram
Bhateri, Vilendra and Rahul. During course
of trial the complainant Ilmo was examined
as P.W. 1. Thereafter, an application under
section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the
prosecution to summon the other accused
persons named in the FIR on the ground
that Smt. Ilmo-the complainant is also an
injured witness. In her statement before the
court she has supported the allegations of
the FIR. The learned trial court after
hearing the parties by the impugned order
has summoned the revisionists to face trial
for the offence under section 323, 504, 506
and 354 IPC.

4. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the revisionists that according
to allegations of the FIR Charchil son of
complainant was also assaulted but in his
statement
under
section
161
Cr.P.C.
Charchil has not named the revisionists.
The complicity of the revisionists was also
not found in the incident by the I.O. during
course of investigation and they were
exonerated. It is also contended that FIR
has been lodged with delay of six days
without any plausible explanation. The
learned trial court has not considered the
objections filed against the application
under section 319 Cr.P.C. while passing the
impugned order. The learned trial court has
passed the order in a cursory manner
without application of mind. During course
of investigation it is found that Sachin is
employed in police department and on the
alleged date of incident he was present on
his duty. It is next contended that till the
time of passing the impugned order only
one witness P.W. 1 has been examined and
only on that basis the impugned order has
been passed which is perverse and illegal.

5. Learned A.G.A. and learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 2 contended that
revisionists are named in the FIR with
specific allegations of being armed with
deadly weapons, lathi, danda and assault.
The complainant and her son have suffered
injuries in this incident. The complainant is
also an injured witness. She has fully
corroborated the allegations of the FIR and
her previous statement under section 161
Cr.P.C. The I.O. has not recorded the
statement of injured witness namely
Charchil and just to benefit the accused
recorded his statement at his own and on its
basis exonerated the revisionist-accused. It
is
further
contended
that
the
complainant/injured
witness
in
her
statement before the court has fully
corroborated the prosecution story as set up
in the FIR and the complicity of the
4 All. Sachin & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1121
revisionist is established from it. The
learned trial court after considering the
entire material on record came to the
conclusion that the complicity of the
revisionists-accused is fully established and
has passed the summoning order, so there is
no illegality in the impugned summoning
order.

6. The Apex Court in the case of
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR
2014 Supreme Court page 1400 has
prescribed
the
standard
of
evidence
required for exercising powers under
section 319 Cr.P.C. The relevant paras 98
and 99 are as follows:

"98. Power under Section 319, Cr.P.C.
is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary
power. It is to be exercised sparingly and
only in those cases where the circumstances
of the case so warrant. It is not to be
exercised because the Magistrate or the
Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some
other person may also be guilty of
committing that offence. Only where strong
and cogent evidence occurs against a
person from the evidence led before the
court that such power should be exercised
and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
99. Thus, we hold that though only a prima
face case is to be established from the
evidence
led
before
the
court
not
necessarily tested on the anvil of crossexamination, it requires much stronger
evidence than mere probability of his
complicity, The test that has to be applied is
one which is more than prima facie case as
exercised at the time of framing of charge,
but short of satisfaction to an extent that
the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead
to conviction. In the absence of such
satisfaction, the court should refrain from
exercising power under Section 319, Cr.
P.C. In Section 319, Cr.P.C. the purpose of
providing if 'it appears from the evidence
that any person not being the accused has
committed any offence is clear from the
words "for which such person could be
tried together with the accused." The words
used are not 'for which such person could
be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope
for the Court acting under Section 319,
Cr.P.C, to form any opinion as to the guilt
of the accused."

7. It is undisputed that revisionistsaccused are named in the FIR and there are
specific allegations against them showing
their complicity in the incident. They have
been assigned the role of assault being
armed with lathi, danda and other weapons.
The complainant has suffered injuries in
this incident, so she is an injured witness.
The complainant in her statement before
the trial court has corroborated the
allegations of the FIR and has specifically
stated that revisionists-accused along with
other accused came at her house armed
with lathi, danda and other weapons and
assaulted her and her son Charchil. The
evidence of an eye witness has greater
evidentiary value and unless compelling
reasons exist his statement is not to be
discarded lightly. The Apex Court in the
cases of State of M.P. Vs. Man Singh
(2003) 10 SCC 414, Abdul Sayeed Vs.
State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259 and
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Naresh (2011)
4 SCC 324 has laid-down the aforesaid
proposition of law.

8. The learned trial court has narrated
the entire facts and evidence available on
record and after analyzing the material on
record has come to the conclusion that
there is sufficient ground to summon the
revisionists for the offence under section
323, 504, 506 and 354 IPC. The impugned
order is based on cogent evidence which
1122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
meet the standard prescribed for exercising
powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. There is
no perversity or illegality in the the finding
recorded by the learned trial court. There is
no ground to interfere in the impugned
order.

9. The revision lacks merit and is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1122
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 1991

Hakim & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
The State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Mohd. Arshad Khan, Sri Amar Jeet Upadhyay,
Sri Ambreen Masroor, Sri Mohammad Arshad
Khan, Sri Sukhbir Singh(A.C.)

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302/34 - Punishment for murder
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 313 - Appeal against conviction -
As per FIR - On 30.09.1987 at about 8 pm,
children of complainant and appellant had
a quarrel - After this appellant with his
two sons reached to the house of
complainant, where they were told by
complainant and his father to keep their
children under control - Appellant and his
sons threatened - Accused started beating
complainant and his father with Lathi and
Ballam - Appellant was armed with spear,
other accused were armed with Lathi -
Complainant's father got a blow of spear -
Case was registered against all the
accused persons
- Charge-sheet was
submitted - Held, the incident occurred on
the spur of moment - There was only one
single injury which was caused by one of
accused - It cannot be said that accused
had
any
premeditated
intention
of
murdering the deceased, they had gone to
residence of deceased only to complain
about quarrel - Thus, Section 34 IPC can't
be said to be proved - In post mortem
report, deceased had injuries on abdomen,
and died after being operated, therefore,
it was not a premeditated act - They were
physically fighting - The weapons used
were not deadly weapons - The act of
accused will be falling within purview of
Section-304(II) IPC - Hence, sentence
undergone
by
appellant
would
be
sufficient as the incident is of the year
1988 and appeal is of the year 1991. (Para
2, 3, 11, 14, 20 )

Appeal is partly allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mohd. Giasuddin Vs St. of AP, AIR 1977 SC
1926

2. Deo Narain Mandal Vs St. of U.P. (2004) 7
SCC 257

3. Ravada Sasikala Vs St. of A.P. AIR 2017 SC
1166

4. Jameel Vs St. of U.P. (2010) 12 SCC 532

5. Guru Basavraj Vs St. of Karn., (2012) 8 SCC 734

6. Sumer Singh Vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7
SCC 323

7. St. of Punjab Vs Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC
441

8. Raj Bala Vs St. of Har., (2016) 1 SCC 463

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J. & Hon'ble Arun Kumar
Singh Deshwal, J.)