Netrapal vs State of U.P. and Another

The present revision has been filed by the revisionist to allow the revision and to set aside the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Mathura in Sessions Case No. 784 of 2023, State Vs. Chandrapal & others, arising out of Case Crime No. 136 of 2022, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order dated 02.09.2025, passed by Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Mathura in Sessions Case No. 784 of 2023, State Vs. Chandrapal & others, arising out of Case Crime No. 136 of 2022, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C, is illegal and arbitrarily. He has further submitted that Netrapal/revisionist is preparing for the competitive examination of armed forces, he has been implicated for the said offence to ruin his carrier. Netrapal was neither present at the date, time and place of the incident nor he has committed any offence. The revisionist was at Bhopal since 06.06.2022 in the house of his uncle Mr. Mahendra Singh Kushwaha. The revisionist became sick in Bhopal and his treatment was conducted by Dr. M.S Thakur. He leave Bhopal for his house on 17.06.2022. The investigation officer has recorded the statement of Mr. Mahendra Singh Kushwaha in C.D. No. 09 and also recorded the statement of Dr. M.S. Thakur, who treated revisionist. The Investigating Officer did not found

¶12

CRLR No. 7433 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

revisionist at the time, place and date of incident, hence he had been exonerated from the investigation. The statement recorded by the I.O of P.W. 1 Ashok and P.W. 2 victim on the basis of legal advice. Even in their statements no offence is made out under Section 354 I.P.C and Section 7/8 POCSO Act.

¶15

The statement of both the witness are contrary to each other and not believable. There are two F.I.Rs of the same incident, which alleged to have take place at 08:00 a.m. The F.I.R of this Case Crime No. 136 of 2022, was registered at Police Station at 15:45 hours. Another F.I.R of Case Case Crime 137 of 2022, was registered at the concerned Police Station at 16:20 hours on 06.10.2022. The victim has stated in her statement that on the date of incident of 10.06.2022 at 08:00 a.m. when she was going to throw cow and buffalo's dung (Gobar) than Netrapal has caught her hand from the back side. The victim make noise then her two brothers Ashok and Pappu came and safeguarded herself. Thereafter, Netrapal, Chandrapal, Virendra and Papo had committed altercation with them, Ashok and Papo had suffered injuries. All the four persons committed altercation, The victim was not aware how the injuries was caused to the injured, thereafter, my brothers went for their medical examination. The victim had submitted the report of the incident after the preparation of the complaint from victim's brother Guddu. The victim was well aware of all the accused persons. The victim stated that the Magistrate Saheb has recorded her statement. The victim had suffered only one injury on her wrist which became bluish colour. No any other injury was caused to herself. The victim brothers Ashok and Pappu came on the spot, they feel hurt that Netrapal has caught victim's hand, but victim's brothers had not committed any altercation with the revisionist/Netrapal nor they used any type of foul languages. Netrapal committed altercation with victim's brothers Ashok and Pappu and ran away from the spot. All the statements are contrary to each other, it is highly improbable that the two brothers came on the spot and as per the allegations they neither entered into any kind of altercation nor used any foul language with the revisionist and the revisionist entered into altercation with them and ran away. It further strengthens the contention of the revisionist that he had not present at the spot. As per the statement of the PW 2 victim, her inquiry report is available in the file, where on the right elbow joint there is redness. The injury report is dated 11.06.2022, the said injury report is one day after of the alleged date of incident 10.06.2022.

¶16

CRLR No. 7433 of 2025

¶17

3

¶18

The statement of Mrs. Mahendra Singh Kushwaha that the revisionist/Netrapal was with him since 06.06.2022 to 17.06.2022. Dr. M.S. Thakur has also recorded his statement, that he has treated the revisionist till 15.06.2022. The injury report of Ashok and Pappu, both brothers of the victim, is dated 10.06.2022. It is highly improbable that when the major call of the incident alleged by the victim related with her and she alleges that Netrapal/revisionist had caught her hand and the revisionist also entered into the altercation with Ashok and Pappu brothers of the victim. But brother of the victim neither entered into any kind of altercation nor any kind of foul languages to revisionist/Netrapal. Netrapal/revisionist also stated to be ran away from the alleged place of incident. The injury report of the brothers of the victim Ashok and Pappu is of dated 10.06.2022 of the same day of incident, whereas the injury report of the victim is dated 11.06.2022, which is after the day of the incident. There is no injury alleges except the redness in the right elbow joint of the alleged victim. As the statement of the Dr. M.S. Thakur, who is the independent witness and the uncle of the revisionist Mr. M.S. Kushwaha and their statement were recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation. It was found that the revisionist/Netrapal was very much present at Bhopal since 06.06.2022 to 17.06.2022, the revisionist/Netrapal was not present at the spot. In all this altercation and incidence there is no injury is alleges on revisionist/Netrapal. The complainant also stated that the revisionist/Netrapal ran away from the spot. Hence, the presence of Netrapal/revisionist was neither confirmed nor found at the place of incident, during the entire investigation. Whereas, his presence was found at Bhopal on the date and time of the alleged incidence, which is proved by the statements of above two witnesses and verified by the Investigating Officer, hence he was exonerated.

¶19

The learned Trial Court did not find any offence under Section 354 I.P.C and under Section 7/8 POCSO Act and clearly elaborated in the impugned order. It is held by the Honble Supreme Court passed in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 92, that the proceedings initiated under Section 319 Cr.P.C is depends upon the judicious discretion of the learned Trial Court, which shall be used in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, that power has to be used with the great caution and during those circumstances where all the facts and circumstances shall specifically specified that whatever evidence is available on the record/file, it is much more than prima facie evidence. Alternatively,

¶20

CRLR No. 7433 of 2025

¶21

4

¶22

that the incident of such a nature that it could not be contradicted and on the basis of that incident the summoned persons could be convicted. There are serious contradictions in the evidences deposed by P.W 1 and P.W 2. The prosecution story does not corroborates the presence and involvement of Netrapal/revisionist in the alleged incident, on the basis of evidences produced by them. The revisionist/Netrapal, who is a young person, who is preparing the examination of Army, it could not be ruled out that he may be implicated in a false case, particularly in the circumstances where the crosscase is also registered.

¶23

In view thereof the impugned order is appeared to be legally, rationally and judiciously unsustainable, which is liable to set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶24

The criminal revision, is hereby, allowed.

¶25

November 24, 2025 Vinod.

¶26

(Abdul Shahid, J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Netrapal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Netrapal 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

Similar cases

Sanjay Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Kumar Thakur vs State of U.P. and Another

Aas Mohammad vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Nitin Agarwal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Tiwari vs State of Up and Another

Gulab Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another