Dismissed¶31

Arif and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2025CRLR/4045/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 319 CrPC addition of accused during trial; discharged/exonerated persons can still be summoned (Sukhpal Singh Khaira); strong and cogent evidence standard higher than charge-framing (Hardeep Singh; Juhru); dying declaration Section 32 Evidence Act via testimony of sister PW-3; dowry death Section 304-B IPC; 498-A; 323; D.P. Act 3/4; Session Trial No. 165 of 2022 Rampur; Case Crime No. 0477 of 2021 P.S. Tanda; criminal revision dismissed; Allahabad High Court; Divesh Chandra Samant.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the Revisionists; the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously. ¶31

Arif and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the Revisionists; the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 9.7.2024 of the Session Judge, Rampur allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoning the Revisionists (who had been exonerated from the chargesheet) was illegal, arbitrary or perverse such as to warrant interference in revision. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

The Court found no error of jurisdiction, impropriety or illegality in the approach adopted by the Trial Court, and held the impugned order neither perverse nor unjustifiable so as to warrant interference in the limited revisional jurisdiction.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Revision lacks merit and deserves to be, and was, dismissed.

¶30

Key takeaways

The statement of PW-3 Shama Parveen that the deceased told her that her husband, brother-in-law, father-in-law and uncle-in-law had given her poison for dowry may amount to a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.ratio¶21
If the deceased's death is presumed to be suicide by self-administered poison, it would not amount to a natural death; and if the prosecution succeeds in establishing a demand of dowry soon before the death, the accused persons may be held guilty under Section 304-B I.P.C. along with the other sections in the chargesheet against them.ratio¶21
There are cogent and palpable evidences available on record indicating more than a prima facie case against the Revisionist-accused, satisfying the higher evidentiary threshold for invocation of Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Divesh Chandra Samant, J.; decided December 1, 2025) dismissed CRLR No. 4045 of 2024 brought by Arif (brother-in-law of the deceased) and Babu (uncle-in-law of the deceased) against the judgment/order dated 9.7.2024 of the Session Judge, Rampur in S.T. No. 165 of 2022 (arising from Case Crime No. 0477 of 2021, P.S. Tanda, Distt. Rampur, under Ss. 498-A, 328, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act), whereby an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed and both Revisionists — though exonerated at the chargesheet stage, which named only Rashid and Ashak Ali — were summoned under Ss. 498-A, 323, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. Relying on Hardeep Singh (2014) 3 SCC 92 CB, Sukhpal Singh Khaira (2023) 1 SCC 289 and Juhru (2023) 5 SCC 406, the Court accepted that the S.319 power is discretionary/extraordinary, requiring strong and cogent evidence above the prima facie level (discharge being no bar). Finding that PW-1 Ashraf, PW-2 Arif Ali and PW-3 Shama Parveen had testified against the Revisionists; treating PW-3's account of the deceased's poisoning-for-dowry statement as possibly a dying declaration under S.32 Evidence Act; noting that death by administered poison would not be natural and that proven dowry-demand soon before death could attract S.304-B IPC; the Court concluded there was 'more than a prima facie case', saw no jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference, dismissed the Revision, confined its observations to the revision, and directed the Trial Court to proceed expeditiously.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4045 of 2024

¶3

Arif And Another

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Court No. - 19

¶7

HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

¶8

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

¶9

Present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.7.2024 passed by learned Session Judge, Rampur in Session Trial No. 165 of 2022(State Vs. Rashid and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0477 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 328, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Tanda, District Rampur, whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and Arif son of Ashak Ali and Babu, son of Mustak have been summoned under Section 498-A, 323, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act to face the trial.

¶10

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the Revisionists that both the Revisionists were named in the FIR, but after investigation, nothing was found by the Investigating Officer against them and they were exonerated from the chargesheet. It has not been considered by the learned Trial Court that the Revisionist No. 1 (Arif) is brother-in-law and the Revisionist No. 2 (Babu) is uncle-in-law of the sister of opposite party No. 2, who are not living with the other accused. They have been falsely implicated in the present case due to malafide intentions. In the postmortem report, no external injury has been found, neither the witnesses have stated any specific role regarding the Revisionists. The learned Trial Court, without considering the facts and evidences available on the record, has passed the impugned order in a cursory manner which

¶11

CRLR No. 4045 of 2024

¶12

¶13

is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. The learned Trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction and has summoned the Revisionists in a casual and mechanical manner. There is nothing available on record for summoning the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C and therefore, the impugned order is against the fact and law and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶14

Par Contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submission advanced by learned counsel for the Revisionists and argued that at the time of consideration of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., only the evidences adduced before the Trial Court are to be considered. There are four witnesses being examined who have supported the prosecution story and given evidence against the Revisionists. The learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the accused to face trial.

¶15

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

¶16

From the perusal, it is apparent that an F.I.R. was lodged against Rashid, husband of the deceased, Ashak Ali, father-in-law of the deceased, Arif, brother-in-law of the deceased and Babu, uncle-in-law of the deceased under Section 498-A, 328, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. After the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against Rashid and Ashak Ali and Revisionists have been exonerated from the chargesheet.

¶17

It is not disputed that the wife of the accused Rashid has died within five years of her marriage. As per the copy of the postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. PW-1 Ashraf, informant and brother of the deceased, P.W.-2, Arif Ali, brother of the deceased, P.W.-3, Shama Parveen, sister of the deceased have supported the prosecution story and given evidence against the Revisionists.

¶18

P.W.-3, Shama Parveen, sister of the deceased specifically stated that on hearing about the illness of the deceased Shaeen, she went to her room and saw that Shaeen was lying on a cot and was told by Shaeen that her husband, brother-in-law, father-in-law and uncle-in-law have given

¶19

CRLR No. 4045 of 2024

¶20

¶21

poison to kill her for the demand of dowry. This statement of PW-3 may amount to a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. There are prima facie evidences regarding the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased. If it is presumed that the deceased has committed suicide by administering poison herself, it will not amount to a natural death, and if the prosecution succeeds in establishing any demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased, the accused persons may be held guilty under Section 304-B I.P.C. along with other sections in the chargesheet against them.

¶22

Therefore, there are cogent and palpable evidence available on record which indicates more than a prima facie case against the Revisionistaccused.

¶23

For consideration of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the guiding principle in the case of Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors, (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Constitutional Bench) , that the power to summon a person as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary and it should be exercised sparingly for summoning any person. The evidence adduced before the Court must be strong and cogent suggesting a greater than prima-facie case though it need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence should be such that if unrebutted, it would lead to the conviction of the person being summoned.

¶24

If in any case an accused has been discharged by the trial Court even then the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked against such person. This principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs The State Of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the necessity of strong and cogent evidence as laid down in Hardeep Singh (supra) and further clarified that merely because a person was discharged does not shield them from being summoned if, during the trial of the co-accused , strong evidence surfaces against them.

¶25

In a case of Juhru and others Vs. Karim and another (2023) 5 SCC 406 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the requirement of high standard of evidence. The Hon'ble Court stressed that the standard for

¶26

CRLR No. 4045 of 2024

¶27

¶28

summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is much higher than the standard required for framing a charge. It must be strong and credible evidence, pointing to the person's complicity.

¶29

In view of facts and circumstances of the case and the law discussed above, this Court finds no error of jurisdiction, impropriety or illegality in the approach adopted by the Trial Court. The order rejecting application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be termed perverse or unjustifiable, warranting interference in the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

¶30

For the reasons stated above, this court is of the opinion that the Criminal Revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed .

¶32

The observations made herein are limited only for the purpose of deciding the instant Revision and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the case during trial.

¶33

The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

¶34

(Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)

¶35

December 1, 2025 ADY

¶36

Digitally signed by :- AMAR DEEP YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arif and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Faim vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalpana Singh and Another vs Simendra Singh

Ashish vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Shivani vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Radha Krishna Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dinesh Rai vs State of Up and Another