Revision against a Section 319 Cr.P.C. order summoning three persons as additional accused in a molestation and assault case. The High Court held the victims' trial court testimony showed more than prima facie case, distinguished Juhru, and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:131037
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1330 of 2024
Revisionist :- Jitesh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
(1) Heard Mr. Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Mr. Rajmani Yadav, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Ms. Priyanka Singh, learned Brief Holder representing the State and perused the record.
(2) The instant Criminal Revision Under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the impugned summoning order dated 05.02.2024 passed by Additional District and Session Judge/POCSO Court No. 02, Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 132 of 2023 (State Vs. Sachin), under Sections 452, 323, 504 IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 0111 of 2022, police station Vijaygarh, district Aligarh, whereby the Trial Court in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has summoned the revisionists as additional accused to face trial in the above case.
(3) The emanation of facts giving rise to the present criminal revision are that complainant, who is mother of the victims, got a first information report lodged on 17.10.2022 for the alleged offence under Section 354B, 323, 504 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act against Sachin, Jitesh (revisionist no. 1), Upendra (revisionist no. 2) and Girraj (revisionist no. 3) alleging inter alia that she has two daughters aged about 17 and 18 years. Today when her both daughters (hereinafter referred to as “victim-A and victim-B) were returning from school in the afternoon, then one boy, namely, Sachin met them on the way and he tore
2
her daughter’s scarf (chunni) and also slapped her (victimA) and also molested her younger daughter (victim-B) by placing his hand on her chest. When her daughters came home and told the entire incident to her, then she asked Sachin about this, then Sachin, Jitesh, Upendra and Girraj also beaten and abused her.
(4) During investigation, investigating officer has recorded the statements of complainant and her daughters (victim-A and B). Relevant extract of their statements are as follows :-
(i) Statement of complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
-------- esjh nksuksa csVh A o B egkRek xka/kh Lekjd xq:oRr baVj dkyst fot;x<+ esa d{kk 12 vkSj 10 esa i<+rh gSA gekjs eksgYys dk jgus okyk ,d yM+dk lfpu vDlj esjh yM+dh A dks ijs’kku djrk gSA ftldk igys geus fojks/k fd;k Fkk ijarq lfpu iq= lkSnku flag ugha ekuk vkSj ;g yxkrkj esjh cPph A dk ihNk djrk jgrk Fkk gekjs cgqr le>kus ij Hkh blus A dk ihNk ugha NksM+kA ?kVuk fnukad 06-10-2022 le; 03-15 cts dh gS esjh nksuksa csfV;ka A o B Ldwy ls i<+dj NqV~Vh gksus ij ?kj okil vk jgh Fkh tc og eksgYyk dlkbZ;ku esa xyh esa vk jgh Fkh xyh lqulku Fkh rHkh lfpu iq= lkSnku flag ihNs ls vk;k vkSj vpkud mlus esjh csVh A dk nqiV~Vk [khapk ftlls esjh csVh dk nqiV~Vk Hkh QV x;k xyh esa ml le; ij dksbZ ugha Fkk vkSj esjh csVh ls NsM+NkM+ djus yxk tc mldh NksVh cgu B us mldk fojks/k fd;k rks mlus B ds lhus ij Hkh gkFk ekjk vkSj euk djus ij A ds xky ij FkIiM+ ekjk fQj esjs nksuksa csfV;ksa us 'kksj epk;k rks lfpu ihNs Hkkx x;kA ;s lkjh ckr tc esjh nksuksa csfV;ksa A o B us eq>s vkdj ?kj ij crkbZ] rks eSa bldh f’kdk;r ysdj lfpu ds ?kj xbZ vkSj lfpu dh eka dks dgk fd lfpu us esjh nksuksa yM+fd;ksa ds lkFk cnrehth dh gS bruh ckr ij gh lfpu] misUnz] ftrs’k o fxfjjkt us feydj esjs lkFk Hkh ekjihV dh tc eSa ogkW ls cpdj vkbZ rks bu pkjksa us esjs ?kj esa ?kqldj esjs MaMk ekjkA igys rks eSa viuh cfPp;ksa ds Hkfo"; dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, eSaus dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh] ij vc tc ikuh lj ls mrj x;k rc eSaus Fkkus ij xbZ Fkkus ij esjh fjiksVZ ugha fy[kh xbZ] fQj eSa dIrku lkgc ds ikl xbZ rc tkdj ds esjh fjiksVZ Fkkus ij fy[kh x;hA lkgc vki crkvks gesa U;k; feysxk ;k ugha feysxkA
3
(ii) Statement of victim-A under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
-----esjh mez djhc 17 o"kZ gS eSa 12 esa i<+rh gwa eSa vkSj esjh NksVh cgu B ge nksuksa Ldwy dh NqV~Vh gksus ij 06-10-2022 djhc 3-15 cts vius ?kj dks vk jgs Fks rHkh esjs iM+ksl dk yM+dk lfpu iq= lkSnku flag gekjs ihNs ihNs vk;k rFkk vpkud ls esjk nqiV~Vk ihNs ls [khapk ftlls esjk nqiV~Vk QV x;k ogka ij dksbZ ugha Fkk rks og esjs lkFk NsM+[kkuh djus yxk rHkh esjh cgu us mls dgk fd rw D;k dj jgk gS esjh cgu us eq>s cpkuk pkgk rks mlus esjh cgu ds lhus ij gkFk j[k fn;k rFkk esjs euk djus ij mlus esjs xky ij FkIiM+ ekjk fQj ge nksuksa us 'kksj epk;k rks og Mj ds ihNs Hkkx x;kA fQj geus ?kj vkdj eEeh dks lkjh ckrsa crkbZ rks esjh eEeh lfpu ds ?kj xbZ vkSj dgk fd lfpu us esjh yM+fd;ksa ds lkFk cnrehth dh gS bruh lh ckr ij lfpu] misUnz] ftrs’k o fxfjjkt pkjksa us feydj esjh eEeh ds lkFk ekjihV dh rFkk ?kj esa ?kqldj eEeh dh dej esa MaMk ekjkA blls igys Hkh og esjs lkFk ,slh gjdr dj pqdk gSA"
(iii) Statement of victim-B under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
-----esjh mez djhc 15 o"kZ gS eSa 10 d{kk esa i<+rh gwaA nksigj esa Ldwy ls i<+dj eSa vkSj esjh cgu A ?kj vk jgs Fks jkLrs esa dlkbZ;ku eksgYyk esa esjs iM+ksl dk lfpu iq= lkSnku flag jkLrs esa ihNs ls vkdj esjh cgu A dk nqiV~Vk [khap fn;k ftlls og QV x;k Fkk rFkk esjh cgu ds FkIiM+ ekjk tc eSaus cpkuk pkgk rks mlus esjs lhus ij gkFk j[kk mlds ckn ge nksuksa cguksa us 'kksj epk;k rks og Mj ds ogka ls Hkkx x;k mlds ckn geus ?kj vkdj viuh eEeh dks lkjh ckr crkbZ Fkh rks eEeh lfpu ds ?kj xbZ o mUgksaus muls dgk fd rqEgkjs csVs lfpu us esjh yM+fd;ksa ds lkFk NsM+[kkuh dh gS rks bruh lh ckr ij lfpu] misUnz] ftrs’k] fxjkZt iq=x.k lkSnku flag pkjksa us feydj eEeh ds lkFk ekjihV o xkyh xkykSt dh rFkk mlds ckn gekjs ?kj esa ?kqldj eEeh dh dej esa MaMk ekjk blls igys Hkh og esjh cgu ds lkFk ,slh gjdr dj pqdk gSA"
(5) The statements of both the victims under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. The relevant part thereof are quoted herein below :
(i) Statement of victim-A under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
------- fnukad 06-10-2022 dks eSa o esjh cgu B Ldwy esa i<+dj vk jgs Fks nksigj 3-10 cts rHkh lfpu ihNs ls vk;k o esjh pksVh [khaph o xys ls pqUuh fudkydj QkM+ nh NsM+[kkuh Hkh djh eq>s FkIiM+ Hkh ekjkA B cgu dk lhuk Hkh nck;k 'kksj epk;k rks Hkkx x;k lfpu iM+kslh gS ?kj ij tc esjh ekrk f’kdk;r djus xbZ lfpu] fxjkZt] misUnz o thrs’k xkfy;ka nsus yxsA ekjihV djus yxs esjh eka dk
4
Cykmt Hkh QkM+k misUnz vkSj fxjkZt us lfpu vkSj ftrs’k us eq>s o esjh cgu B dks idM+dj ekjkA 05-07-2022 dks Hkh lfpu us NsM+[kkuh djh FkhA
(ii) Statement of v ictim-B under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
------- fnukad 03-10-2022 dks eSa o A Ldwy ls vk jgs Fks rHkh lfpu iM+kslh ihNk dj jgk Fkk lfpu us cgu A dh pksVh [khaph o nqiV~Vk Hkh [khapk eq>s mlus FkIiM+ Hkh ekjk tc eSaus cpk;k rks lfpu us esjs lhus ij gkFk ekjk cqjh fu;r ls] fQj ?kj vkdj eSaus eka dks crk;k eEeh lfpu ds ?kj xbZ rks lfpu] ftrs’k] misUnz o fxjkZt us xkfy;ka nh o ekjihV djh] eka dks ekjk fQj ge vk x,] pkjksa O;fDr gekjk ihNk djrs gq, MaMs ds lkFk vk x, o ekjihV djh o eka dk Cykmt QkM+k fxjkZt] misUnz us] lfpu us esjs lkFk NsM+[kkuh djh] ftrs’k us esjh cgu A ds lkFk NsM+[kkuh djhA 05-07-2022 dks lfpu us A ds lkFk NsM+[kkuh djh Fkh o esjs lkFk ekjihV djhA
(6) After culmination of investigation, investigating officer has submitted charge-sheet only against co-accused Sachin and the revisionists have been exonerated.
(7) Before the trial Court, statements of complainant and her both the daughters/victims have been recorded as PWs-1, 2 and 3, in which, they have made specific allegations of beating, abusing and molestation outraging her modesty against the revisionists. Relevant part of their statements are extracted herein below :
(i) Statement of complainant recorded as PW-1 before the trial Court
-------- ?kVuk fnukad 06-10-2022 dh gS nksigj dh gSA esjh NksVh csVh Ldwy ls i<+dj ykSV jgh FkhA ftudh mez djhc ,d dh 16 o"kZ o nwljh dh 17 o"kZ Fkh rks jkLrs esa lfpu us esjh cM+h csVh ihfM+rk dh pqUuh tcjnLrh [khap dj QkM+ nh vkSj mlus fojks/k fd;k rc xky ij pesVk ekj fn;k fQj NksVh csVh dks Hkh cqjh uh;r ls Nkrh ij gkFk ekjk vkSj nksuksa ls cqjh uh;r ls NsM+NkM+ dh rc mUgksaus gYyk xqYyk fd;k rc lfpu ogkW ls Hkkx x;k vkSj csVh us vkdj eq>s vkSj ?kj okyksa dks ckor crk;k fQj eSa ogkW f’kdk;r djus x;h rks mUgksaus fxjkZt] ftrs’k] misUnz] lfpu yksxksa us esjs lkFk xkyh xkykSt dh vkSj esjs lkFk ekj ihV dh vkSj esjk Cykmt QkM+ fn;k eSa ?kj esa vdsyh Fkh cPph Mj x;h Fkh esjs ifr vkxjk esa ukSdjh djrs gS eSa i<+h fy[kh ugha gwW rgjhj fdlh ls fy[kkdj viuh nksuksa csfV;ksa dks ysdj Fkkus x;h vkSj ogkW ij c;ku fy;s Fks vkSj iqfyl
5
okys ?kj ij vk;s mUgksaus ogkW ij Hkh c;ku fy[kk Fkk rFkk ogkW ij Hkh x;s tgkW lfpu us NsM+NkM+ dh Fkh ?kVuk ds ckn og /kedh nh fd vxj fjiksVZ dh rks tku ls ekj nsxsaA njksxk th us c;ku fy[kk csVh dk esfMdy djk;kA
(ii) Statement of victim-B recorded as PW-2 before the trial Court
-------- xokg ihfM+rk NksVh iq=h vVy fcgkjh fuoklh ekS0 vfgju] Fkkuk fot;x<+] vyhx<+ us 'kiFkiwoZd c;ku fd;k fd ge nks cfgu ,d HkkbZ gS eSa nwljs uEcj dh gS cfgu cM+h gSA ?kVuk fnukad 06-10-2022 le; 03-15 cts eSa o cfgu A Ldwy dh NqV~Vh ds ckn ?kj okfil vk jgs Fks rks ogkW lfpu eksgYys dk gS eksgYys dk lfpu ogkW ckbZd ij feyk mlus esjh cfgu ihfM+rk dh pksVh idM+h fQj nqiV~Vk [khapk vkSj QkM+ fn;k fQj mls cpkus dh dksf’k’k dh rks esjs lhus ij gkFk j[kk vkSj FkIiM+ ekjk fQj geus 'kksj xqy fd;k rc og Hkkx x;k fQj geus eEeh dks crk;h lkjh ckr fQj lfpu ds ?kj eEeh f’kdk;r djus x;h rks ogkW ij lfpu] ftrs’k] misUnz o fxjkZt tks lfpu ds HkkbZ gS mUgksaus ykBh M.Mkas ls ekjk ihVk vkSj xkyh xkykSt dh Fkh vkSj gekjs ihNs ihNs gekjs ?kj ij vkdj vUnj ?kql dj misUnz o fxjkZt us eEeh ds gkFk idM+ dj eEeh dks tehu ij fxjk fy;k ftrs’k us cM+h cgu A dks uhps fxjkdj v’yhy gjdr djus yxk o eq>ls Hkh NsM+NkM+ djus yxk misUnz o fxjkZt us eEeh ds xys esa Qank yxkdj tku ls ekjus dh dksf’k’k dh gekjs 'kksj xqy eksgYys ds yksx ekek jktho flag ekSds ij vk x;s FksA ikik vkxjk esa Fks geus Qksu fd;k rc og vk x;sA ?kVuk okys fnu Fkkus eEeh ds lkFk x;s fjiksVZ ugha fy[kh fQj 4&5 fnu ckn fjiksVZ fy[kh FkhA
(iii) Statement of victim-A recorded as PW-3 before the trial Court
-------- xokg ihfM+rk cM+h cgu iq=h vVy fcgkjh fuoklh ekS0 vfgju] Fkkuk fot;x<+] vyhx<+ us 'kiFkiwoZd c;ku fd;k fd eSa d{kk 12 rd i<+h gwWA 2 cgu 1 HkkbZ gSA eSa lcls cM+h gwW esjh cgu o eSa fnukad 06-10-2022 dks le; djhc fnu 03-15 ij ge Ldwy ls i<+dj okfil ?kj vk jgs Fks rc jkLrs esa gekjs eksgYys dk lfpu iq= lkSnku flag gekjs ihNs vk;k vkSj esjk nqiVVk [khapk ftlls nqiVVk QV x;k esjs lkFk gkFk idM+dj v’yhy gjdr djus yxk vkSj cpus dh dksf’k’k dh rks esjh pksVh idM+dj esjs xky ij FkIiM+ ekjk vkSj esjh cgu ds Hkh lhus ij Hkh gkFk ekjk vkSj mlds lkFk ekjihV dh Fkh tc ge nksuksa cguksa us 'kksj epk;k rks vU; jkgxhjksa ds vk tkus ij og Hkkx x;k ;g ckr ?kj vkdj eEeh dks crk;h Fkh rks mUgksaus lfpu ds ?kj f’kdk;r djus x;h rks
6
mUgksaus lfpu] fxjkZt] misUnz] ftrs’k us xkyh xkykSt dh vkSj ogkW ls Hkxk fn;k eEeh tc ogkW ls vk;h rc ;g pkjksa yksx ihNs ls ?kj esa ykBh ysdj ?kql vk;s vkSj ?kql dj lHkh us eEeh o cgu o esjs lkFk ekj ihV dh Fkh vkSj eEeh dh dej esa M.Mk ekjk Fkk vkSj eEeh dk Cykmt QkM+ fn;k FkkA
(8) Thereafter, the complainant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. dated 08.01.2024 for summoning the revisionists as additional accused, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 05.02.2024.
(9) The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionists is that in the first information report, main allegation has been levelled against co-accused Sachin. So far as the revisionists are concerned, only allegations of abuse and assault have been levelled against them. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the victim-A and her younger sister (victim-B) made an improvement in their statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. by further stating that the revisionists Girraj and Upendra also tore blouse of their mother. It is also contended that other independent witnesses, namely, Jwali Prasad, Radhey Shyam Yadav, Mukesh, Smt. Kalpana and Harprasad in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have stated inter-alia that except co-accused Sachin, no one was involved in the said incident because at that time, Upendra, Jitesh and Girraj were present in the factory of Neeraj Gupta and on the basis of said statements, charge-sheet was not submitted by the Investigating Officer against them. It is also submitted that even considering the material evidence on record, no offence under Section 354 or 354B IPC is made out against the revisionists. Lastly, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Juhru and others Vs. Karim and another, (2023) 5 SCC 406, it is submitted that on the basis of evidence which has come on record through the statements of PWs-1, 2 and 3, no case for summoning the revisionists is made out. Hence, the
7
impugned order dated 05.02.2024 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
(10) Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the said submissions of learned counsel for the revisionists by contending that in the first information report, allegation of assault has also been levelled against the present revisionists. He further submits that the first information report is not an encyclopedia, hence, each and every details of the incident is not required to be mentioned in it. The object of F.I.R. is only to set the criminal law in motion. He further submits that in fact, in this case, complainant is also one of the victim because she in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has also leveled the allegations of assault on her against the revisionists. She has also stated that when she saved herself then all the four accused persons barged into her house and again assaulted her. Referring the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim-A and B (daughters of complainant), it is also submitted that in the said statement, they has made serious allegation of assault and outraging the modesty of their mother by the present revisionists. They specifically stated that revisionists have torn the blouse of her mother. So far as plea of alibi of the revisionists is concerned, it is pointed out that investigating officer has not recorded the statement of Neeraj Gupta, therefore, chain of the evidence that whether at the time of incident, the revisionists were working in the factory of Neeraj Gupta or not is not complete. On the strength of aforesaid facts, it is argued that the said evidence is more than sufficient to frame charge against the revisionists in appropriate sections of Indian Penal Code.
(11) Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is no dispute about proposition of law laid down
8
by the Apex Court in the case of Juhru and others (supra), on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the revisionists but the same is not helpful to the revisionists as the same is distinguishable on the facts and evidence of this case. It is well settled that every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusion in two cases, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. I also find that it is also not in dispute that statements of PWs-1, 2 and 3 recorded before the trial Court are in consonance with the statements of the victims recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. I also find that tone and tenor of the statement of the victims recorded at different stages may be slightly different but essence of the statements of the victims (PWs-1, 2 and 3) are same.
(12) The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 is the celebrated judgment on the issue involved in this case, which laid down the criteria for summoning a person as an additional accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. holding that where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the trial Court, then such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. It has also been held that 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. The said view has further been followed in catena of judgments by the Apex Court.
(13) This Court is of the view that the statements of the victims recorded before the Trial Court is more than prima facie case to constitute an offence under the I.P.C. and
9
sufficient to frame charge. In case the said evidence goes unrebutted, the possibility of conviction cannot be ruled out. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The presumption, observations and findings recorded by the trial court are not liable to be interfered with.
(14) The Criminal Revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(15) Let a copy of this order be sent to the complainant and concerned court below within a week.
Order Date :- 13.8.2024 Shubham
Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning order against the revisionists as additional accused was justified on the evidence before it.
Whether the trial court evidence met the Hardeep Singh threshold of more than prima facie case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Juhru and others Vs. Karim and anotherDistinguished¶11
(2023) 5 SCC 406 · Who else cites this
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and othersRelied on¶12
(2014) 3 SCC 92 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Jitesh
Upendra
Girraj
State of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
