Dismissed

First Informant v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024CRLR/3807/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. challenging the rejection of an application to summon additional accused persons in a rape case, holding that insufficient evidence existed to implicate them.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. dismissed; order rejecting Section 319 Cr.P.C. application affirmed.

First Informant vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:137035

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3807 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- First Informant Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Avesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

¶7

2-The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the revisionist/informant against the impugned order dated 29.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bijnor in Sessions Case No. 613 of 2023 (State vs. Ujjwal) arising out of Case Crime No. 15 of 2023, under Section 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Haldaur, District Bijnor whereby application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist/informant for summoning the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 has been rejected.

¶8

3-The emanation of the facts giving rise to the present criminal revision is that the informant/revisionist who is father of the victim got a first information report lodged on 14.01.2023 against Ujjwal Deshwal, Himani Deshwal, Monika Deshwal, Ansh Deshwal and Robin for the offence under Sections 376, 120-B, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act alleging inter-alia that accused Ujjwal Deshwal, against the wishes of his daughter and on the pretext of marriage, took her to his house where other accused persons locked them in a room where Ujjawal Deshwal has committed rape on his daughter. All the accused persons allured her that they will get her married to Ujjwal Deshwal and on the promise of marriage, Ujjwal Deshwal has committed rape on his daughter multiple times.

¶9

4-Investigating officer, after culmination of investigation, submitted charge-sheet dated 17.07.2023 only against Ujjwal Deshwal, against whom main allegation of rape has been levelled.

¶10

5-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the victim has specifically made allegation against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and has also explained their roles but the Investigating Officer, without proper investigation, exonerated them. It is next submitted that before the trial court, PW-1 has been examined but ignoring the statement of PW-1, learned Trial court, without applying its judicial mind, has rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist/informant for summoning the additional accused/opposite party nos. 2 to 5.

¶11

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 charge-sheet dated 17.07.2023 against the main accused-Ujjwal Deshwal. It is next submitted that though the name of opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were mentioned in the F.I.R., but no evidence was found against them to establish that they have supported Ujjwal Deshwal for committing rape upon the victim. 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.

¶12

7-Having examined the matter in its entirety, in the light of submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I find that though the victim has levelled allegation against all the accused persons in the F.I.R. that they have helped Ujjwal Deshwal for committing rape upon her but she has not disclosed their specific roles. This Court also finds that there are material contradiction between the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 164 Cr.P.C. as well as her statement recorded before the trial court. The investigating officer, after investigation, exonerated the opposite party nos. 2 to 5.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

11-The revision lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 27.8.2024 Saurabh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

First Informant v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

First Informant v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijesh vs State of U.P.

Sonu Kashyap vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shyama Devi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Khayali Pal vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

X- Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another