Dismissed¶17

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2025CRLR/3694/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr., CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3694 of 2024 (Allahabad High Court, Harvir Singh, J., October 6, 2025): challenge to dismissal of Section 319 Cr.P.C. application by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Additional Special Judge POCSO Court No. 1, Firozabad (order dated 30.04.2024); witnesses p.w.-1, p.w.-2, p.w.-3 deposed on hearsay, not eye-witnesses; video clip never made part of case diary nor received by Investigating Officer; statement of deceased recorded prior to death cannot be disbelieved; assailants named Anil, Anuj and Mohit; no ground to interfere; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.04.2024 was passed in accordance with law, based on a fair examination of the testimony of p.w.-1, p.w.-2 and p.w.-3. ¶15

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 dismissing the revisionist's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 30.04.2024 was passed in accordance with law, based on a fair examination of the testimony of p.w.-1, p.w.-2 and p.w.-3.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Once the statement of the deceased, recorded prior to her death, is available, the same cannot be disbelieved; the court noted p.w.-3's account that the deceased, while conscious, stated he was assaulted by three persons namely Anil, Anuj and Mohit along with another person.

¶15

Key takeaways

No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.04.2024; the revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 93), Criminal Revision No. 3694 of 2024 — Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another (Harvir Singh, J.; decided October 6, 2025): The revision challenged the order dated 30.04.2024 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Additional Special Judge (POCSO) Court No. 1, Firozabad dismissing the revisionist's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against prospective accused. The revisionist argued that the testimony of p.w.-1, p.w.-2 and p.w.-3 was hearsay (they were not eye-witnesses) and that a video clip disclosing the accused's names existed. The A.G.A. responded that the trial court considered all three witnesses, that they deposed on hearsay, and that the video clip was never made part of the case diary nor received by the Investigating Officer. The High Court held the impugned order was passed in accordance with law after fair examination of the testimony of p.w.-1, p.w.-2 and p.w.-3, and that once the statement of the deceased recorded prior to her death is available, it cannot be disbelieved (p.w.-3 having stated the deceased, while conscious, named Anil, Anuj and Mohit along with another person as his assailants). Finding no ground to interfere, the Court dismissed the revision.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3694 of 2024

¶3

Vinod Kumar

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dharmendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 93

¶7

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The present revision has been filed against the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Additional Special Judge P.O.C.S.O. Court No. 1, Firozabad. By the said order dated 30.04.2024, the application of the revisionist filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that, there is sufficient evidence against the prospective accused, as far as the testimony of p.w.1, p.w.-2 and p.w.-3 is concerned, however, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been dismissed without going into the entirety of the facts and corroboration of the evidence of witnesses. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that there is some video clip in which the name of the accused persons have been disclosed, but it is not clear as to whether the said video clip is available as on date or was ever supplied to the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that the said application has been dismissed on the basis of testimony of the witnesses, which is based on hearsay evidence and they are not the eye witnesses of the incident. So the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the order impugned has been passed in accordance with law as the learned trial court has well

¶12

CRLR No. 3694 of 2024

¶13

¶14

considered the testimony of all the three witnesses i.e. p.w.-1, p.w.-2 and p.w.-3. It has further been submitted by the learned A.G.A. that, it is a matter of record, that the witnesses have deposed on the basis of hearsay and they are not the eye witnesses. So far as the video clip is concerned, it was never made a part of the case diary and it was never received by the Investigating Officer, for the reason best known to the informant or the Investigating Officer.

¶15

Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Additional Special Judge P.O.C.S.O. Court No. 1, Firozabad, I am of the opinion that the said order is passed in accordance with law, based on fair examination of the testimony of p.w.-1, p.w.-2 and p.w.-3, as p.w.-2 those have stated that, they have not seen anyone accompanied with the deceased and further p.w.-3 has stated that the deceased, while he was conscious has stated that he was assaulted by three persons namely Anil, Anuj and Mohit along with another person. Once the statement of the deceased is available, recorded, prior to her death, the same cannot be disbelieved.

¶16

In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Additional Special Judge POCSO Court No. 1, Firozabad. The revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed.

¶18

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶19

October 6, 2025 Gss

¶20

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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