Revision against rejection of a Section 319 Cr.P.C. application to summon sister-in-law Poonam in a dowry death trial arising from the alleged strangulation of the revisionist's sister. The Court found her presence at the scene suspicious and disputed on witness testimony and found no infirmity in the order, dismissing the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 377 of 2024
Jitendra
.....Revisionist(s)
| Versus | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| State of U.P. and Another | .....Opposite Party(s) |
||
| Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) |
: : |
Kuldee G.A., Singh |
p Singh Chahar Sukrampal, Tikendra Pratap |
Court No. - 93
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
CRLR No. 377 of 2024
2
made by another son-in-law namely Shishram to the father of the deceased that Ramsati is serious and they must visit her matrimonial home. When they reached at the matrimonial house of the deceased, she was found dead in the house. Thereafter, the brother of the deceased lodged the FIR, alleging therein that his sister had been done to death at the hands of her in-laws. Apart from the names of the farther-in-law, mother-in-law, husband, grand-in-laws and sister-in-law (Nanad) Poonam were named in the FIR. However, after completion of the investigation by the Investigating Officer, charge sheet was submitted against other coaccused persons, excluding sister-in-law Poonam. Thereafter, charge was framed and accused persons were put to trial. After commence of trial, p.w.-1 namely, informant, brother of the deceased Jitendra, p.w.-2 father of the deceased, p.w.-3 sister of the deceased namely Saroj were examined. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that despite being sufficient evidence, the prospective accused Poonam was not summoned by the court concerned.
CRLR No. 377 of 2024
3
of the deceased and stated that the police has taken down the body of the deceased, which was hanging in the house. The opp. party no. 3 during her examination has submitted that other co -accused persons including Poonam, the prospective accused have taken down the dead body of the deceased. Learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 submitted that the presence of the prospective accused Poonam has been disputed and stated that she already got married prior to the incident in question and was living in her matrimonial house. It has further been submitted that the present revision has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
September 16, 2025
Gss
Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon Poonam as an accused during the dowry death trial.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
State of U.P.
Another
Harvir Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
