Dismissed¶17

Ram Prasad Kushwaha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2025CRLR/330/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC against rejection of Section 311 CrPC application to summon deceased's widow as defence witness; Rs. 5 lakh compensation under Farmers Accident Welfare Scheme held not conclusive proof of accidental death (scheme excludes no murder victim, makes no cause-of-death determination); application after nearly 10-year trial and post-evidence held to be delay tactic; revision dismissed by Alok Mathur, J., Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, 25.3.2025; S.T. No. 216/2015, Case Crime No. 59/2013, Unnao; murder versus accidental death; procrastination of trial.

What did the court decide?

Compensation under the Farmers Accident Welfare Scheme is given to a farmer who dies in an accident or an unnatural death, and the scheme contains no exclusion for a person who is murdered. ¶15

Ram Prasad Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's order dated 07.03.2025 rejecting the revisionist's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the defence witness (wife of the deceased) suffers from any infirmity. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was preferred only after the trial had been in progress for nearly ten years since the incident of 17.01.2013, and after conclusion of evidence, constituting unreasonable delay.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Compensation under the Farmers Accident Welfare Scheme is given to a farmer who dies in an accident or an unnatural death, and the scheme contains no exclusion for a person who is murdered.

¶15

Key takeaways

Grant of compensation under the Farmers Accident Welfare Scheme, whether rightly or wrongly, is not conclusive or demonstrative that the deceased died in an accident.ratio¶15
On a perusal of the scheme, only the cause of death is looked into and payment is made if the claim falls within the four corners of the policy; there is no finding or determination on the cause of death that could establish accidental death.ratio¶16
The application was moved only to procrastinate the trial, and the summoning of the documents/evidence sought by the revisionist would in any case not serve the purpose.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur, J.; decision dated 25.3.2025) in Criminal Revision No. 330 of 2025: The revisionist, an accused in S.T. No. 216/2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 59/2013, U/S 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, Unnao (incident 17.01.2013), assailed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. the order dated 07.03.2025 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1st, Unnao, rejecting his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking summons to the wife of the deceased as defence witness, on the ground that she had received Rs. 5 lakh compensation under the Farmers Accident Welfare Scheme. The Court held that the scheme covers death in an accident or an unnatural death with no exclusion for murder, that only the cause of death is examined and payment made if the claim falls within the four corners of the policy, and that the grant of compensation, rightly or wrongly, is not conclusive that the death was accidental. The application, filed after evidence concluded and nearly ten years into the trial, was moved only to procrastinate, and the evidence sought would not serve the purpose. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the revision.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16811

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 330 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Ram Prasad Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Kaushal Kishore Tewari,Shakti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Kaushal Kishore Tewari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

By means of the present criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., the revisionist has assailed the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1st Unnao in S.T. No. 216/2015 wherein the application preferred by under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning of the defence witness has been rejected.

¶9

The brief facts as stated by learned counsel for revisionist are that on 17.01.2013 a first information report was lodged by the complainant against the revisionist and 4 other accused in Case Crime No. 59/2013, U/S 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao. According to the first information report, it was alleged that the revisionist along with other accused persons have assailed with lathi, danda and later on hanged on the mango tree, as a result of which he had died.

¶10

The investigation was concluded and a charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist and four other accused. The evidence of the parties have concluded and the case is being listed for final hearing. At this stage, revisionist had moved an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking to summon the wife of the deceased on the ground that she has moved an application for grant of compensation under the Farmers Accident Welfare Scheme under which policy in case there is an unfortunate or an accidental death of any farmer and that he is the sole bread earner of the farmer a sum of Rs. 5 lakh was granted by the State and the said amount was credited to the wife of the deceased on 10.05.2014

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that they wanted to demonstrate that in case the deceased has died

¶12

due to accidental death when the implication of the application in the said case is false. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that previously also an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected on 13.02.2024 and when the matter was listed for final hearing, the trial court was of the view that only in order to delay and procrastinate the trial the said application has been given and accordingly the application has been rejected.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the revision. He has submitted that even if the version of the revisionist is found to be correct under the Farmers Accident Welfare Scheme, compensation is paid for an unnatural death. There is no provision in the said scheme that the said scheme has excluded any person who has been murdered. Even in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the family of the deceased was dis-entitled from receiving compensation. Accordingly, he submits that the application was given only to delay the trial after conclusion of the evidence and there is no infirmity in the order of the trial court rejecting the said application.

¶14

I have heard rival contention and persued the record. The facts in the case are not disputed inasmuch as the revisionist and four other persons are accused in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 2015 (State Vs. Ram Prasad and others). The incident relates to 17.01.2013 and even the trial is in progress since nearly 10 years and it is after the said period of time the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist. It has further been noticed that even the amount of compensation given to the wife of the deceased was paid on 10.07.2014. In the said application, it has merely been stated that it is now the revisionist has come to know about the payment of the said compensation and has preferred the said application.

¶15

Apart from the above, this Court has also examined the scheme of the government under the Farmers Accident Welfare Scheme and finds that compensation is given to a farmer who dies in an accident or an unnatural death. There is no exclusion that in case a person is murdered, he would be excluded for payment of the compensation under the aforesaid scheme. The only reason that application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was preferred by the revisionist was to demonstrate that the deceased was not murdered and had died due to an accident. Merely because the compensation has been granted rightly or wrongly by the State Government under the Farmers Accident Welfare Scheme will not be conclusive or demonstrative of the fact that the deceased had died during an accident.

¶16

From the perusal of the scheme, only the cause of death is looked into and if the claim falls within the four corners of the policy the payment of compensation was granted. There is no finding on the determination with regard to cause of death. Accordingly apart from the fact that there is an unreasonable delay after examining the policy as well as grounds taken by the revisionist. This Court finds that the same has been moved only to procrastinate the trial and summoning of the documents as sought by the revisionist would in any case not serve the purpose or even the evidence sought by them .

¶17

In light of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 accordingly, the revision is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed .

¶18

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 25.3.2025 Ravi/

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Prasad Kushwaha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad Kushwaha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kalaoo @ Kalaoo Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Sandeep Tiwari Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Juvenile X Thru. His Father Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Bharti and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Mobin Ali and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Lko. and Another