Allowed

Ram Milan Mishra v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2022CRLR/326/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held the order rejecting an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is liable to be set aside. The trial court erred in considering objections of the main accused and in concluding witness statements were hearsay without giving the main accused an opportunity to oppose the application.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.11.2021 was set aside and directed to pass a fresh order after hearing.

Ram Milan Mishra Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 326 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Ram Milan Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Zuber Ahmad Siddiqui,Syed Imran Ibrahim

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This revision has been filed against the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC Court No. 1, Maharajganj in S.T. No. 126 of 2018, State Vs. Sanoj Pathak and others, arising out of case crime no. 129 of 2018, under section 306 I.P.C. police station Kolhui District Maharajganj whereby the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist has been rejected.

¶8

Revision is admitted.

¶9

The opp. party no. 2, 3 and 4 are proposed accused persons who have not been summoned yet.

¶10

In my opinion, at the time of passing order on the revision / application, there is no need to issue notices to them.

¶11

It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that against the application under section 319 Cr.P.C., the learned lower court has considered the objections of the accused persons who were not affected by the order on the present application. In this order the trial court has opined that " p.w.-1, 2 and 3 have neither witnessed the incident nor they were present on the spot. Their statements are hearsay evidence. On the basis of their statements, the proposed accused persons Sudha, Rajesh and Golu cannot be summoned". This finding of trial court will adversely affect the case of revisionist.

¶12

If we go through the impugned judgment wherein the detailed objections on behalf of the accused Sanoj Pathak appearing in the lower court have been filed and considered. While there was no occasion for him to oppose this application under section 319 Cr.P.C. on merits against the proposed accused persons. The second last paragraph of the impugned order makes it clear that learned lower court has expressed his opinion that p.w. 1, 2

¶13

and 3 have deposed hearsay evidence and this finding of the lower court may damage the prosecution case.

¶14

Considering the objections of the present accused who is not affected by the order on application under section 319 Cr.P.C. and the finding that the statement of witnesses of fact is mere hearsay evidence, both are against law. The accused Sanoj Pathak and other co-accused had no locus to oppose the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. and secondly, the findings that the P.W. 1, 2 and 3 are the witnesses who have deposed on the basis of hearsay evidence may damage the case of the complainant.

¶15

The order dated 30.11.2021 passed by passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC Court No. 1, Maharajganj in S.T. No. 126 of 2018, State Vs. Sanoj Pathak and others, arising out of case crime no. 129 of 2018, under section 306 I.P.C. police station Kolhui District Maharajganj is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside.

¶16

The lower court is directed to pass a fresh order on the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. after giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist and learned A.D.G.C.

¶17

The revision is allowed accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 21.2.2022 Gss

¶19

Digitally signed by GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA Date: 2022.02.23 17:22:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Milan Mishra v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Milan Mishra v. State of U.P.and 3 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

Muniram Thekedar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Utkarsh Arya Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sri Nivas and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dushyant Chauhan Vs Harish Chandra

Israr Ahmad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar Nahar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another