Dismissed

Smt. Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2018CRLR/1904/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision disposed of against the order rejecting summons of five additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Held, trial court's finding based on prosecutrix's statement was not perverse. Charge framing under IPC sections remitted to trial court via simplicitor.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was disposed of; lower court record sent back to concern court for fresh order on charge framing if pressed.

Smt. Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1904 of 2013

¶3

Revisionist :- Smt. Maya Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 5 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- B.L. Yadav,Anil Kumar,Mahipal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Gaurav Kakkar

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

1. Heard Sri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Jagdev Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A., for the State.

¶6

2 . This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 1.6.2013 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Bijnor in S.T. No. 71 of 2013 (State Vs. Shubham and others) whereby application of the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C., to summon the opposite party no. 2 (Savita), opposite party no. 3 (Raj Pal @ Raju), opposite party no. 4 (Jas Pal), opposite party no. 5 (Kavita) and opposite party no. 6 (Diwan Singh) has been rejected. By the impugned order dated 1.6.2013, trial court has also refused to frame charges against the accused under Sections 368 and 376-D IPC.

¶7

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that PW1 prosecutrix has specifically narrated the involvement of opposite party no. 2 (Savita), opposite party no. 3 (Raj Pal @ Raju), opposite party no. 4 (Jas Pal), opposite party no. 5 (Kavita) and opposite party no. 6 (Diwan Singh) in the offence in her statement before the court. Even though, learned trial court has not summoned the opposite parties. He further contended that prosecutrix was wrongly confined and raped by accused Shubham, even though the learned trial court has not framed charge under Sections 368 and 376-D IPC against the accused.

¶8

4 . Learned counsel for the opposite party contended that opposite party no. 2 to 6 are not named in the FIR. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has not narrated the involvement of opposite party no. 2 (Savita), opposite party no. 3 (Raj Pal @ Raju), opposite party no. 4 (Jas Pal), opposite party no. 5 (Kavita) and opposite party no. 6 (Diwan Singh).

¶9

Therefore, there is no any chance of their conviction on the basis of evidence on record.

¶10

5. Learned A.G.A., contended that on the basis of statement before the court, opposite party no. 2 (Savita), opposite party no. 3 (Raj Pal @ Raju), opposite party no. 4 (Jas Pal), opposite party no. 5 (Kavita) and opposite party no. 6 (Diwan Singh) must have been summoned by the learned trial court.

¶11

6. Perused the impugned order. Learned trial court has observed that in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has not narrated the involvement of opposite party nos. 2 to 6. If these accused were involved in the alleged crime, then there was no any reason for the prosecutrix not to narrate their names in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Finding returned by the trial court is based on evidence and is not perverse.

¶12

7 . In view of above, I am of the opinion that there is no any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶13

8. As far as, framing of charge under Sections 368 and 376-D IPC against other accused person is concerned, they are not made party in the revision, therefore, it is not proper to pass any order, in their absence. However, if the prosecution press for alter or to add any charge against accused persons, the trial court is at liberty to pass fresh order on the basis of evidence on record as per provision of Section 216 Cr.P.C. without being influenced by the order dated 1.6.2013 or by this order.

¶14

9 . Consequently, this criminal revision is disposed of .

¶15

10 . Office is directed to send back the lower court record to court concerned without any delay.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.4.2018 Jaswant

Smt. Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gulafsa @ Chandani and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and 4 Others

Sudhakar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ravi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh @ Saurabh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Km. Saloni Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Vs State and Others