Dismissed

Rajendra Saini v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2024CRLR/3953/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the trial court's rejection of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon two persons as additional accused. The Court held that evidence on record did not meet the high threshold required for summoning additional accused under Hardeep Singh guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed with an order to send a copy to the concerned court below within a week.

Rajendra Saini vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:146280

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3953 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Rajendra Saini Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahesh Kumar Sahani,Narendra Singh 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 against the impugned order dated 09.07.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Court No. 2, Maharajganj in Sessions Trial No. 495 of 2023 (State vs. Tribhuvan and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2022, under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kolhi, District Maharajganj whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the informant / revisionist has been rejected.

¶8

3-The emanation of the facts giving rise to the present criminal revision is that the complainant has lodged a first information report on 19.06.2022 with regard to an incident which took place on the same day against four accused persons, namely, Tribhuvan, Bechan Gupta, Arjun Gupta and Rahul alleging inter-alia that on 19.06.2022, one Tribhuvan of his village started digging on his land for foundation of a wall and on making resistance, all the above named accused persons, armed with lathi, danda and axe (tagi), started abusing and assaulting him whereby he has received injuries on his body. F.I.R. further alleges that the accused persons, while

¶9

leaving, also threatened him for life.

¶10

4-Investigating officer, after culmination of investigation, submitted charge-sheet only against Tribhuvan, Bechan Gupta, Arjun Gupta and Rahul Gupta.

¶11

5-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that during investigation, revisionist had disclosed the name of Keshav (opposite party nos. 2) and Vishal (opposite party no.3) and facts about their involvement in the crime but the investigating officer, without conducting proper investigation and ignoring his statement submitted charge-sheet no. A99/2022 dated 18.07.2022 exonerating opposite party nos. 2 and 3. It is next submitted that on 25.06.2024, revisionist has moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for summoning opposite party nos. 2 and 3 but the trial court, illegally rejected the same.

¶12

6-Learned A.G.A. for the State also submits that the evidence which has come on record during trial is more than prima facie, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.

¶13

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 opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were neither named in the F.I.R. nor chargesheet has been submitted against them. No specific role has been attributed to opposite party nos. 2 and 3. The trial court, while rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the complainant dated 25.06.2024, has stated that the revisionist/ informant/ victim himself lodged the impugned F.I.R. but he neither in the F.I.R. nor in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has disclosed the complicity of Keshav and Vishal regarding their involvement in the

¶14

alleged crime.

¶15

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. 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.

¶16

9-In the light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra), I find that if allegations levelled by the informant during trial if go unrebutted, there is bleak possibility of conviction of the accused. The evidence which has been brought on record does not comes under the purview of more than prima facie.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

12-Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below within a week.

¶20

Order Date :- 9.9.2024/Saurabh

¶21

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

Rajendra Saini v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Saini v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Bitthal Gupta vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Suresh Chand and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Prabha Devi vs State of Up and Another

Shiv Nandan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Brijesh vs State of U.P.