Dismissed

Smt Geeta v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2024CRLR/669/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a criminal revision challenging the rejection of an application to summons an additional accused. The court applied the Hardeep Singh guidelines, finding no strong evidence sufficient for a prima facie case against the excluded individual.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Smt Geeta vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:131958

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 669 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Smt Geeta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dheeraj Pandey,Nand Kishor Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶7

The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the revisionist-Smt Geeta against the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mahoba in Special Case No. 77 of 2020 (State Vs. Dipendra @ Deepu Singh), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2) (5ka) S.C./S.T. Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 208 of 2020, Police Station Kabrai, District Mahoba, whereby the trial court has rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist and refused to summon opposite party No. 2 to face trial in the above case.

¶8

The emanation of facts giving rise to the present criminal revision are that the revisionist who is complainant and victim lodged a First Information Report on 07.08.2020 with regard to an alleged incident which took place on 11.03.2020 for the alleged offence under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(i)(B) against two accused persons, namely, Deepu Singh Thakur and Deepak Singh (opposite party No.2).

¶9

The investigating officer, after investigation submitted the charge sheet only against Deepu Singh Thakur. No charge-sheet was submitted against opposite party No.2 - Deepak Singh and he

¶10

was exonerated during investigation, because in the opinion of the investigating officer, his complicity in the alleged crime was found false.

¶11

During trial, statements of the complainant-Geeta, Vinita and Km. Vinisha were recorded as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 in which they have made allegations against Deepu Singh stating inter alia that on the day of incident he entered her house and started molesting and outraging her modesty. Later on opposite party No.2 Deepak Singh who is cousin of Deepu Singh Thakur came with stick and by abusing and threatening, badly beaten them. Thereafter, revisionist who is complainant in this case moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning opposite party No.2 as an additional accused, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 30.11.2023.

¶12

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that PW-1 apart from her statement recorded before the trial court had also made allegations against opposite party No.2 in the F.I.R. as well as in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Investigating officer did not conduct fair investigation with regard to opposite party No.2 and he has wrongly been exonerated in this case and no charge sheet was submitted against him, therefore, on the basis of statement of PW-1, the opposite party No.2 is liable to be summoned to face trial, but the learned trial court illegally rejected the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist.

¶13

Learned Additional Government also submits that the impugned order is not sustainable.

¶14

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that as per the prosecution case, incident took place in two parts. Regarding first part of the incident allegations of assault, abuse and outraging the modesty of the victim have been levelled against Deepu Singh Thakur who has been charge-sheeted and facing trial. So far as second part of incident is concerned, it is alleged that opposite party No. 2

¶15

Deepak Singh came with stick ( lathi ) and abusing the complainant, badly beaten her and her daughter, but there is no injury report to prima facie establish the said allegations against Deepak Singh. I also find that the trial court while rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist has also observed that merely by reiterating the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the witness before the trial court cannot be a good ground for summoning any person as an additional accused.

¶16

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 judgements by the Apex Court.

¶17

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 PW-1 during trial if go unrebutted, there is bleak possibility of conviction of the accused. The evidence which has been brought on record does not come under the purview of more than prima facie. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.11.2023. The presumption, observations and findings recorded by the trial court are not liable to be interfered with.

¶18

The instant criminal revision lacks merit and is

¶19

accordingly dismissed .

¶20

Let a copy of this order be sent to opposite party No.2 and concerned court below within a week.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.8.2024 Kashifa

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Geeta v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Geeta v. State of Up and Another

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

Naseem vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitesh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Renu @ Soni vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagirath vs State of U.P.

Nainsi Minor vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Amarjeet vs State of U.P. and Another