The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the rejection of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused persons in a murder case. The court held there was no strong evidence to justify summons, upholding the trial court's order.
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:136452
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3641 of 2024
Revisionist :- Khayali Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard Mr. Ashwini Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.
2-The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi inn S.T. No. 557 of 2023 (State vs. Surajbhan Pal) arising out of Case Crime No. 21 of 2023, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Raksha, District Jhansi whereby application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the informant/revisionist has been rejected.
3-The emanation of the facts giving rise to the present criminal revision is that the complainant who is father of the victim got a first information report lodged on 23.01.2023 with regard to an incident which took place on the same day against seven named accused persons, namely, Ashok, Rajendra, Soorajbhan, Balli, Akhlesh, Panku and Jagdish, who are in-laws of his daughter alleging inter-alia that on 23.01.2023 at about 18:00 hours, he received an information that his daughter has hanged herself. On the said information, he went there but by then, his daughter's dead body was brought on the road. It is also alleged that his daughter was done to death by the accused persons by strangulating her in the mustard field.
4-Investigating officer, after culmination of investigation, submitted charge-sheet only against Ashok, brother-in-law of the deceased while others
have been exonerated.
5-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that in the year 2007, the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Surajbhan Pal. It is next submitted that all the accused persons, who were his daughter's in-laws have committed the murder of the deceased. The investigating officer, without proper investigation and ignoring the statement of independent witnesses, has illegally submitted final report in favour of opposite party nos. 2 to 7. It is next submitted that during the course of trial, the evidence of PW-1/informant was recorded, but the 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 to 7.
6-Per contra learned A.G.A. for the State 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 7. It is next submitted that though the name of opposite party nos. 2 and 7 were mentioned in the F.I.R., 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.
7-Having examined the matter in its entirety, in the light of submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the trial court, while rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the complainant dated 04.04.2024 has mentioned that from the F.I.R. as well as from the statement of complainant/PW-1, it is apparently clear that he is not an eye witness of the incident and no specific role has been attributed against the proposed accused persons (opposite party nos. 2 to 7).
8- 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.
9-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.
10-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.
11-The revision lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 27.8.2024 Saurabh
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's rejection of an application to summon additional accused persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. when strong evidence against them is absent.
Whether the trial court's finding that the complainant was not an eyewitness and no specific role was attributed to the proposed accused persons warrants revision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and othersExplained¶14
(2014) 3 SCC 92 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Khayali Pal
State Of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
Saurabh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
