Revision against rejection of the informant's Section 319 Cr.P.C. application seeking summons to two exonerated relatives of the husband in a dowry death trial. Court held no strong or cogent evidence emerged at trial against them; revision dismissed.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121373
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 230 of 2024
Revisionist :- Deepesh Kumar Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashutosh Mishra,Krishna Kumar Shukla,Shailendra Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- Beena Mishra,G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Beena Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
2-The instant Criminal Revision Under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the impugned order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) in Sessions Trial No. 699 of 2021 (Ravishankar @ Rajan vs. State of U.P. and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 86 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist for summoning opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as additional accused.
3-The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant/revisionist-Deepesh Kumar Kashyap has lodged a first information report on 26.02.2021 against Rajan (husband), Vijay Kumar (father-in-law), Chunni (mother-in-law) Bablu, (brother-law/Jeth) and Gudiya (sister-in-law/Jethani), for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act alleging inter-alia that on 09.02.2019, the marriage of his sister was solemnized with Rajan and after the said marriage, above named accused persons started demanding Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lac) as additional dowry and on non-fulfillment of their demand, they started harassing his sister and also they used to beat her. On 25.02.2021 at
about 11:00 in the night, the deceased was strangulated to death by the aforesaid accused persons. The investigating officer, on culmination of investigation, submitted charge sheet against Rajan (husband), Vijay Kumar (father-in-law), Chunni (mother-in-law) and exonerated Bablu (brotherlaw/Jeth) and Gudiya (sister-in-law/Jethani) as no credible evidence was found against them by the investigating officer.
4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that during the course of trial, the evidence of informant/revisionist and his father-Ram Das was recorded before the trial court as PWs-1 and 2, who in their statements, have also given evidence against Bablu, brother-law (Jeth) and Gudiya sister-in-law (Jethani), but the learned Trial Court without applying its judicial mind, has rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist for summoning the additional accused/opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
5-Per contra learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that the investigating officer, after due investigation, submitted final report with regard to opposite party nos. 2 and 3. It is next submitted that though the name of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were mentioned in the FIR, but no evidence was found against them to establish that they have played any role in committing the said offence. As per Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is well established that a person should be called for trial in any crime only when sufficient evidence is available.
6-The learned Trial Judge has rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., moved on behalf of the revisionist on the ground that both Bablu, brother-inlaw (Jeth) and Gudiya sister-in-law (Jethani), of the deceased were also nominated in the FIR, but their participation in the crime was found false and final report has been submitted against them by the investigating officer. During investigation, the
investigating officer has recorded the statements of independent witnesses namely Mukta Prasad, Chheda Lal, Ram Ratan, Raj Kumar, who have stated that after the marriage of deceased with Rajan, they were living separately with Bablu, brother-law (Jeth) and Gudiya sister-in-law (Jethani) and, therefore, they have no role in the harassment and murder of the deceased. Learned Trial Judge has further held that no new evidence has come on record to implicate Bablu, brother-law (Jeth) and Gudiya sisterin-law (Jethani) in this case.
7- Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others , (2014) 3 SCC 92 is the celebrated judgement on the point, 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 Court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
8-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 judgements by the Apex Court.
9-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.
10-The revision lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Saurabh
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether trial court rightly rejected the Section 319 Cr.P.C. application to summon Bablu and Gudiya as additional accused in a dowry death trial despite their evidence as PWs.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and othersRelied on¶7
(2014) 3 SCC 92 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
State of U.P.
Bablu
Gudiya
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
