Sushil Kumar Rathor vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sushil Kumar Rathor vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24585

Court No. - 81

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 733 of 2025 Revisionist :- Sushil Kumar Rathor Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohit Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bind, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohit Kumar Tiwari, 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 18.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Decoity Affected Area)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Farrukhabad in Special Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2016 (State Vs. Sushil and others) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist, under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for his discharge, had been rejected.

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist himself brought the injured Gaurav to the hospital and got him admitted, therefore there is no possibility of his involvement in the crime in question. It has further been argued that without there being any clinching evidence against the revisionist, he is being prosecuted therefore, he is entitled for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that the Investigating Officer had collected sufficient evidence against the revisionist and on that basis, Charge Sheet has been filed against him. He has further submitted that the co-accused, Radhe Shyam and Avinash were arrested and on the basis of their statements, the revisionist was also arrested in relation to the crime in question.

Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has vehemently argued that it is the revisionist who hatched the conspiracy and thereby the crime in question had been committed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the Investigating Officer had collected evidence against the revisionist and there are statements of the eye-witness and the injured witness against the revisionist.

This Court finds that the learned trial court had considered the matter in detail and had recorded a categorical finding in respect of the availability of evidence on

record. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 is extracted as under:

" ककसडडयररकडपररशरलनकरनकसकयहसपषहहतडहहककघटनडककचककदशरसडकरवडकदनरनररजरडठठरवघडयल सडकरसठरभरडठठरदडरडकववकचककहयहबयडनकदयडगयडहहककपडरर / अकभय सकशरलरडठठरउसकडररशतकदडरहह जजसनकउसकडपलडटकदखडयडरड।पलडटकडककछपहसडपपवरममअदडककयडजडच क डरडतरडशकषपकसडपलडटकक कवकयककएजडनकककसमयकदयडजडनडरड।सकशरलरडठठरनकसठरभरडठठरसकयहकहडरडककजबपलडटकडशकष पहसडदकनकचलकगमतहउसकबतडनडतहवहचलकरकदलवडदकगड।सठरभरडठठरदडरडअपनकररशतकदडरसकशरलरडठठरकह पहसडदकनकवडलरबडतबतडयरगयर।कदनडनक 03-12-2015 कहसठरभरडठठरअपनरपतनरनररजरडठठरककसडर 5,70,000/- ( पडनचलडखसतरहजडररपयक ) ल क रकवजयबहडदकर , कशवरडमजसनहवकवजयजसनहकहदकनकफतकहगढ टटकनसकफररखडबडदआएऔरवहडनपरजसमईकतरडहकपरसकशरलरडठठरउसककमलडऔरउनकहबहठडकरककइयडबपट गडनवककतरफचलनकलगडजहसकहरवहलहगकढलडवलमहडककपडसपहहनचकतहसडमनकसकतरनवयककअपडचकगडडरसक आएऔरउनममसकएकवयककनकसठरभरडठठरकहगहलरमडरदरऔरउसककपतनरनररजरडठठरककपसरलपटकर भडगगएजजसमम 5,70,000/- ( पडनचलडखसतरहजडररपयक ) रक।मठककसकसकशरलरडठठरभडगगयड।कववकचनडकक दठरडनपडरर / अकभय सकशरलरडठठरकहपकजलसदडरडसहअकभय क गणरडधकशयडमउफररडधकदरककत , अकवनडशउफर सनजपकतवकदरककसडरकदनडनक 11-12-2015 कहकगरफतडरककयडगयडतरडरडधकशयडमककपडससक 50,000/- रपयक , अकवनडशककपडससक 30,000/- रपयकएवनसकशरलरडठठरककपडससक 30,000/- रपयकबरडमदककएगए।ककसडडयरर ममइससमबनधममपरमदषयडसडकयउपलबधहहककपडरर / अकभय सकशरलरडठठरदडरडसहअकभय क गणककसडर कमलकरषडयनतककतहतवडकदनरनररजरडठठरवउसककपकतसठरभरडठठरककसडरलपटपडटककगयरहहतरडउक षडनतममसहअकभय क गणदडरडवडकदनरककपकतसठरभरडठठरकहगहलरमडरकरघडयलकरकदयडगयडहह। पडरर / अकभय सकशरलरडठठरदडरडअपनकसहअकभय ककसडरकमलकरलपटककतरडअकभय सकशरलरडठठरसक 30,000/- रपयकपकजलसदडरडबरडमदककएगएहह।पडरर / अकभय सकशरलरडठठरकककवरदभड०द०स०ककधडरड 394,307,120B, 411 कडआरहपकवरकचतककएजडनककडपरमदषयडआधडरपयडरपहह।पडरर / अकभय ककओर सकपसतकतउनमहचनपडररनडपतकड०स० 44B अनतगरतधडरड 227 द०प०स०आधडरहरनहहनककककडरणकनरसत ककएजडनकयहगयहह। "

From the aforesaid consideration made by the trial court, it is patently manifest that the prima-facie evidence is available against the revisionist in the form of statements of eye-witness and injured witness and further there are also statements given by the co-accused against the revisionist. Once there is prima-facie evidence against the revisionist, there is no occasion for the trial court to exercise its power under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge of the revisionist.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.11.2024.

Accordingly, this revision lacks merits and is hereby dismissed .

Order Date :- 20.2.2025 A. Mandhani

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad