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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim relief only: (i) notice ordered to Opposite Party No. 2 returnable within six weeks; (ii) matter to be listed after six weeks, in top ten cases; (iii) operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 6.1.2025 stayed till the next date of listing. No final adjudication was made on whether the Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning was sustainable.

Issue for consideration

Whether the revisionist was rightly summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the impugned order to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., given that (per counsel and the Judge's prima facie view) no evidence on record connects him with the crime except an alleged incident one day before the occurrence, and the real culprit has already been arrested and charge sheeted.

Court's answer

Prima facie, the Court finds there is no evidence available on record to connect the revisionist with the crime in question except an alleged incident which took place one day before the date of crime; accordingly the matter requires consideration.

Ratio / Principle

Notice is to be issued to Opposite Party No. 2, returnable within six weeks.

Key takeaways

As an interim measure, the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 6.1.2025 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 81, Criminal Revision No. 515 of 2025, Order Date 6.2.2025, Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.) filed by Dr. Aditya against the order dated 6.1.2025 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Court No. 3, Amroha, whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionist had been summoned to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Counsel for the revisionist argued that no evidence was available to connect him with the crime except an alleged incident taking place one day before the date of occurrence which, even if taken as gospel truth, would not suffice; and that after the F.I.R.-based police investigation the real culprit, traced through the motorcycle registration number provided by a witness, had already been arrested and charge sheeted and was facing trial, the summons against the revisionist resting merely on presumption. Considering the arguments, the Judge recorded a prima facie finding that there was no evidence on record connecting the revisionist with the crime apart from the pre-occurrence incident, held that the matter required consideration, ordered notice to Opposite Party No. 2 returnable within six weeks, directed listing after six weeks in top ten cases, and stayed the operation and implementation of the impugned order till the next date of listing. Interim decision; no precedent was cited.

Court No. - 81

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 515 of 2025

Revisionist :- Dr. Aditya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- M J Akhtar,Shahzad Alam,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sehzad Alam, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 6.1.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Court No. 3, Amroha whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionist had been summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that in fact no evidence is available before the trial court to connect the revisionist with the crime in question except an alleged incident which took place one day before the date of occurrence of the crime. He further submits that even if the incident which took place one day before the date of occurrence of the crime, for the sake of argument is considered to be gospel truth, that itself is not sufficient to connect the revisionist with the crime in question.

It has also been argued on behalf of the revisionist that after lodging of the F.I.R., the matter was investigated by the police and on the basis of registration number of motorcycle provided by the witness, the real culprit had already been arrested and charge sheeted and he is facing trial but only on the basis of presumption, the revisionist is being unnecessarily compelled to face the trial that too for a serious crime punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist and prima-faice, I find that there is no evidence available on record to connect the revisionist with the crime in question except an alleged incident which took place one day before the date of crime.

Matter requires consideration.

Let notice be issued to Opposite Party No. 2 returnable within six weeks.

List this matter after six weeks, in top ten cases.

Till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 6.1.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Court No. 3, Amroha, shall remain stayed.

Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Gaurav

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad