Dismissed¶24

Ram Babu Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2025CRLR/7834/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning; criminal revision dismissed; Allahabad High Court; Abdul Shahid, J.; POCSO court Kanpur Nagar; Special Session Trial No. 444 of 2025; Case Crime No. 272 of 2021; Section 302/34 IPC murder; FIR 23.8.2021; accused exonerated during investigation; PW-1 examination-in-chief sufficient for summoning; recovery of weapons and body from Sasural; Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 relied on; statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; contradictions argument rejected.

What did the court decide?

In a matter of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C., even the examination-in-chief alone is sufficient to summon an accused; the detailed cross-examination and appraisal of evidence undertaken at the stage of final decision is not required at the summoning stage. ¶10

Ram Babu Mishra and Another vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 8.9.2025 passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against the revisionists (who had been exonerated during investigation) suffers from any illegality or irregularity.

¶9

Court's answer

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The material relied upon by the trial court — the examination-in-chief of PW-1 specifically assigning roles to the accused including the revisionists, corroborated by the statements of the son and daughter of the deceased, and recovery of the alleged weapons and the dead body from the Sasural — is much more than sufficient for summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C., exceeding what is required for framing of charge, as per the law laid down in Hardeep Singh.

¶11

Key takeaways

There is neither illegality nor irregularity in the impugned summoning order, and the criminal revision is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court, Abdul Shahid, J.) against a summoning order dated 8.9.2025 passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the Child Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 25, Kanpur Nagar in Special Session Trial No. 444 of 2025 (Case Crime No. 272 of 2021, Section 302/34 IPC, P.S. Bidhnoo). The revisionists, though named in the FIR dated 23.8.2021, had been exonerated during investigation and no charge sheet was filed against them. After the examination-in-chief of PW-1 (the first informant, father of the deceased) recorded on 3.5.2024, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on 20.8.2025 resulting in their summoning. Held, relying on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, that at the stage of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. even the examination-in-chief is sufficient; the evidence before the trial court — specific assignment of roles to the accused in the examination-in-chief, corroboration by the son and daughter of the deceased, and recovery of the alleged weapons ('Gainti' and 'Chapar') and the dead body from the Sasural of the deceased — was much more than sufficient for summoning, exceeding the threshold for framing of charge. No illegality or irregularity found in the impugned order; revision dismissed (December 1, 2025).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7834 of 2025

¶3

Ram Babu Mishra And Another

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus
State Of U.P. And Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) :	Rakesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 91

¶7

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the summoning order dated 8.9.2025, passed by the Child Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 25, Kanpur Nagar in Special Session Trial No. 444 of 2025 (State Vs. Veeru Mishra alias Anuj), arising out of Case Crime No. 272 of 2021, under Section 302/34 IPC, Police Station Bidhnoo, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶10

The brief facts of the case is that the FIR was lodged on 23.8.2021 and the incident is of 22.8.2021 at 20.00 hour. The FIR was registered under Section 302/34 IPC against the named accused (1) Ram Babu Mishra, (2) Veeru Mishra, (3) Vibhu Mishra, (4) Jeetu Mishra,(5) Sandhya and (6) Sister of Sandhya, Rani. There are specific allegation that on the date of incident on 22.8.2021, the incident took place and all the accused persons have been named in the FIR and they have committed murder of son of the first-informant. The FIR has been lodged and the revisionists were named in the FIR, but the revisionists have been exonerated during investigation and no charge sheet has been filed against them.

¶11

After completion of the statement of PW-1/ first informant, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been filed on 20.8.2025. The statement of PW-1, Shivakant Bajpayee, father of the deceased was recorded. The examination-in-chief of PW-1, who is aged about 80 years

¶12

CRLR No. 7834 of 2025

¶13

¶14

was recorded on 3.5.2024. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed and verified the contents of the incident dated 22.8.2021. On that date, son of the first-informant was murdered at the resident of the accused, which was his Sasural. The grand-son and grand-daughter of the first-informant told him that Ram Babu Mishra, Veeru Mishra, Vibhu Mishra, Jeetu Mishra, Sandhya and Sister of Sandhya, Rani, with collusion had killed their father and they had used 'Gainti' and 'Chapar'. The deceased had suffered 11 injuries. The said weapons and dead body were recovered from the house of the accused. The house of the accused is nothing, but Sasural of the deceased.

¶15

Thereafter, cross-examination of PW-1 was continued on 21.5.2024, 3.5.2024, 2.8.2024, 17.3.2025, 1.4.2025, 8.4.2025 and 22.4.2025. A detail cross-examination of PW-1 has been took place. The examination-inchief and cross-examination of PW-1, both consist of 27 pages.

¶16

Learned counsel for the revisionists has vehemently submitted that there is no specific allegation of using the weapons was made by the grand-son and grand-daughter of the first informant and that has been further improved in the examination-in-chief of the first informant recorded before the trial court.

¶17

The FIR is a simple basic prosecution case. It is not an encyclopedia, where each and every things has to be mentioned.

¶18

Learned counsel for the revisionists further argued that during entire investigation and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C, there are serious contradictions and there are no specific allegation against all the accused persons. The statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C as per settled law, are not admissible in evidence before the court of law. It could be used during trial only for contradiction. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further vehemently submitted that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Constitution Bench); (2014) 3 SCC 92 , the learned trial court has not held that the evidence recorded before it is much more than the prima facie whatever is required for framing of charge and it could be more what is required for summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶19

CRLR No. 7834 of 2025

¶20

¶21

In the examination-in-chief, father/first informant of the deceased has specifically assigned the role of the accused named in the FIR including the revisionists. He has also relied upon the statements of his grand-son and grand-daughter, who are son and daughter of the deceased. The cross-examination which took place on various dates for several months and the entire evidence of the first informant is of 27 pages.

¶22

Learned counsel for the revisionists has analyzed and appraised over all the evidences and draw attention of this Court on the contradiction recorded in the FIR and the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C and the statement in examination-in-chief and cross examination of PW-1. Whereas, a detail and minutes cross-examination and the appraisal of evidence, which is required at the stage of 319 Cr.P.C is not more whatever is required by the learned trial court at the time of decision of the case in holding holistic view on the evidence submitted by the prosecution. In the matter of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C, even the examination-in-chief is sufficient to summon the accused.

¶23

As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh (supra) , the statement recorded by the first-informant in his examinationin-chief, has specifically been relied on by the learned trial court. The son of the first-informant has been murdered in his Sasural that has been corroborated by the statements of son and daughter of the deceased. The alleged weapons and dead body of the deceased were recovered from his Sasural. At the stage of summoning of an accused, under Section 319 Cr.P.C, these are the evidence which is much more than sufficient whatever is required for framing the charge.

¶24

In view of above, there is neither illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. The present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶25

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶26

December 1, 2025 sfa/

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Babu Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Babu Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashutosh Jaiswal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanwarpal vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. and 6 Others