Dismissed¶12

Jagdish v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2025CRLR/1140/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision dismissed; Section 319 Cr.P.C. summons upheld; summoning of accused to face trial mid-way in sessions trial; specific role assigned in FIR, in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements and in eyewitness courtroom testimony (P.W. 1, P.W. 2); offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 I.P.C. (murder trial); Sessions Trial No. 104 of 2024 (State Vs. Satendra Singh and Others); District and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri; order dated 16.12.2024 challenged; revisionist Jagdish; counsel Agnivesh, Jadu Nandan Yadav; judge Manjive Shukla; decided 17.3.2025; Court No. 82; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:36929.

What did the court decide?

None granted to the revisionist; the Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning order dated 16.12.2024 stands and the revisionist is to face trial. ¶12

Jagdish vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None granted to the revisionist; the Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning order dated 16.12.2024 stands and the revisionist is to face trial.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court committed a manifest error in summoning the revisionist to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C., given the revisionist-side contention that no specific role was assigned to him and there was no direct evidence connecting him with the crime. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

The revisionist was named as an accused in the First Information Report lodged in respect of the crime and was assigned a specific role in commission of the crime; the statements of the eye-witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. likewise assign him a specific role.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The courtroom testimonies of the eye-witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 patently show that a specific role was assigned to the revisionist in commission of the crime, consistent with his naming in the F.I.R. and in the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements.

¶10

Key takeaways

Since categorical role was assigned to the revisionist consistently at every stage (F.I.R., Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements and trial-court testimony), this Court finds that the trial court committed no manifest error in summoning the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C.ratio¶11
The criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad HCA (Manjive Shukla, J.) — Criminal Revision No. 1140 of 2025 (Jagdish, Revisionist vs State of U.P. and Another), decided 17.3.2025: dismisses the revision challenging the order dated 16.12.2024 of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 104 of 2024 (State Vs. Satendra Singh and Others), whereby the revisionist was summoned to face trial in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 I.P.C. Holds that the revisionist was named as an accused in the F.I.R. with a specific role, that the eye-witnesses' statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and their trial-court testimonies (P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) likewise assigned him a specific role, and that the witnesses' stand was consistent all along; consequently the trial court committed no manifest error in issuing the Section 319 summons and the revision, being misconceived, lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36929

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1140 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Jagdish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Agnivesh,Jadu Nandan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Agnivesh, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2.

¶7

The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 104 of 2024 (State Vs. Satendra Singh and Others) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionist had been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 I.P.C.

¶8

It has been contended that no specific role has been assigned to the revisionist in connection to the crime in question. It has further been contended that merely on the ground of suspicion, the revisionist had been summoned to face the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that there is no direct evidence connecting the revisionist with the crime in question and further no specific role has been assigned to the revisionist therefore, the trial court, while summoning the revisionist to face trial in exercise of its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has committed manifest error.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 has submitted that the revisionist had been named in the First Information Report, the witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have categorically demonstrated the role of the revisionist in the crime in question and further eye-witnesses, while deposing before the trial court, had categorically stated that the revisionist has committed the crime in question and his role has also been specified by them. It has further been argued that once there is categorical evidence against the revisionist in respect of the crime in

¶11

question, the trial court, while summoning the revisionist in exercise of its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has not committed any error.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 has further argued that the instant criminal revision, being absolutely misconceived, is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

¶13

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the documents annexed along with this criminal revision.

¶14

I find that the revisionist has been named as an accused in the First Information Report lodged in respect of the crime in question and he has been assigned specific role in commission of the crime. I further find that the Investigating Officer had recorded statements of the eye-witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there also, specific role has been assigned to the revisionist in connection with the crime in question.

¶15

This Court also finds that the testimonies of the eye-witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have been recorded before the trial court and there also, specific role has been assigned to the revisionist in the commission of the crime in question. For ready reference, the testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, recorded before the trial court, are extracted as under:

¶16

"पी०डब्लू०-1

¶17

दि�नांक- 24.07.2024 साक्षी के दिपता का नाम - रामसनेही लाल उम्र- करीब 30 वर्ष+, व्यवसाय - �ेती

¶18

साक्षी का नाम - अखि�लेश कुमार

¶19

जातित-

¶20

दिनवासी- नगला आशा थाना ति2रोर जिजला मैनपुरी में दिनवास करता / करती है।

¶21

साक ्ष ी ने शपथपूव+क बयान द ि कया द ि क-

¶22

2टना दि�नांक 13.11.2023 समय करीब 11.30 बजे दि�न की है। मेरे दिपताजी रामसनेहीलाल �ेत पर काम कर रहे थे और मैं व मेरा भाई शैलेन्द्र व माता उर् म िला �ेवी पडोस में ही �ूसरे �ेत में काम कर रही थीं। उसी समय मेरे गांव के जागेश्वर, सतेन्द्र पुत्रगण लक्ष्मण सिंसह, सतीश, सुनील पुत्रगण राजवीर सिंसह, नारायणस्वरूप पुत्र सामन्त सिंसह उर्फ+ जसवन्त सिंसह, जग�ीश पुत्र भंवर सिंसह ये सभी लोग एक साथ आये और मेरे दिपताजी पर जान से मारने की दिनयत से लाठी-डन्डे व र्फावडे से हमला कर दि�या। जिजसमें मेरे दिपताजी बुरी तरह से 2ायल होकर बेहोश हो गये। तभी इन लोगों ने �े�ा दिक उनकी मौत नहीं हुयी तो सुनील, सतेन्द्र, सतीश व नारायणस्वरूप ने दिपताजी को पकड खिलया और जागेश्वर व जग�ीश ने र्फावडे से तब तक हमला करते रहे, जब तक उनकी मौत नहीं हो गयी। हम लोगों ने शोर मचाया और गांव की तरर्फ भागे, तब गांव के कार्फी लोग आ गये। तब ये लोग वहां से चले गये। यह पूरी 2टना मैंने, मेरे भाई शैलेन्द्र व माँ उर् म िला �ेवी ने अपनी आँ�ों से �े�ी थी। इस 2टना की रिरपोट+ मैंने अपने साले सुबोध कुमार से बोल - बोलकर खिल�वायी थी और उसे पढने के बा� मैंने हस्ताक्षर दिकये थे।

¶23

पत्रावली में उपलब्ध कागज संख्या - 4 अ/4 तहरीर को �े�कर गवाह ने कहा दिक यह वही तहरीर है जो मैंने थाने में �ी थी, इस पर मेरे हस्ताक्षर हैं, जिजस पर प्र�श+ क-1

¶24

¶25

डाला गया। मैंने �रोगा जी को 2टनास्थल भी दि��ाया था और अपने बयान भी उनको दि�ये थे। Cross by defence for all accused---

¶26

बचाव पक्ष के अतिधवक्ता द्वारा स्थगन प्राथ+ना पत्र जिजरह हेतु समय प्र�ान दिकये जाने का प्रस्तुत दिकया गया। इस स्तर पर 200/-रुपये हजh पर जिजरह अन्य तितथिथ के खिलये स्थदिगत की जाती है।

¶27

बयान मेरे समक्ष गवाह द्वारा बोलने पर पेशकार

¶28

द्वारा अंदिकत दिकया गया।"

¶29

पी०डब्लू०-2 साक्षी का नाम-शैलेन्द्र जातित-

¶30

दि�नांक 05.08.2024

¶31

साक्षी के दिपता का नाम - स्व० रामसनेही लाल

¶32

उम्र करीब 39 वर्ष+, व्यवसाय - �ेती

¶33

दिनवासी- नगला आशा थाना ति2रोर जिजला मैनपुरी में दिनवास करता/करती है।

¶34

साक ्ष ी ने शपथपूव+क बयान द ि कया द ि क-

¶35

2टना दि�नांक 13.11.2023 समय करीब 11.30 बजे सुबह की है। मैं, मेरा भाई अखि�लेश व मेरी माता उर् म िला �ेवी अपने �ेत में आलू गाड रहे थे और मेरे दिपताजी रामसनेहीलाल बराबर वाले �ेत में र्फावडे से 2ास सार्फ कर रहे थे। 2ास सार्फ करने को लेकर मेरे गांव के सतेन्द्र पुत्र लक्ष्मण सिंसह से कहासुनी हो गयी, तभी जागेश्वर, सतेन्द्र, सुनील, सतीश, नारायण स्वरूप उर्फ+ नीरज, जग�ीश के द्वारा एक राय होकर मेरे दिपता श्री रामसनेहीलाल के ऊपर लाठी-डन्डों व र्फावडे से हमला कर दि�या तथा मेरे दिपताजी जिजस र्फावडे से काम कर रहे थे, उसे ही जागेश्वर ने उनसे छीनकर र्फावडे की मूठ से दिपताजी के जिसर पर वार दिकये जिजससे उनकी मौके पर ही मृत्यु हो गयी। यह 2टना मैंने, मेरे भाई अखि�लेश ने व मेरी माता जी उर् म िला �ेवी ने अपनी आँ�ों से �े�ी थी। इस सम्बन्ध में मेरे भाई अखि�लेश ने रिरपोट+ थाने में खिल�ायी थी, और �रोगा जी ने मेरा बयान भी खिलया था।"

¶36

From the aforesaid testimonies of the eye-witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, recorded by the trial court, it is patently manifest that a specific role has been assigned to the revisionist in commission of the crime in question. This is also worth consideration that all along during investigation i.e. while lodging F.I.R., revisionist had been named as an accused with his specific role and he has also been assigned specific role in the statements of the eye-witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶37

Once categorical role has been assigned to the revisionist in commission of the crime in question by the eye-witnesses and their stand all along had been consistent i.e. they have named the revisionist in commission of the offence, they have assigned specific role to the revisionist in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and while deposing before the trial court, they have given specific role to the revisionist in commission of the crime, this Court finds that the trial court, while summoning the revisionist in exercise of its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has not committed any manifest error.

¶38

¶39

Accordingly, the revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed . Order Date :- 17.3.2025

¶40

A. Mandhani

¶41

¶42

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jagdish v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest and 5 Others

Tribhuvan Prasad Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ravi vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Prakash @ Pappu Gupta and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiya Lal Pathak and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Randheer Singh and Others vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri and Others