Ankit Uttam vs State of Up and Another

The present criminal revision has been preferred being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.12.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Court No.2, Fatehpur in Session Trial No. 1041 of 2023 (State Vs. Ankit Uttam) arising out of Case Crime No. 167 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B, 323, 506 IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bakewar, District Fatehpur.

¶10

The FIR has been lodged under Sections 498A, 304B, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 18.7.2023 on the date of incident itself. The marriage was performed on 18.2.2023. The FIR has been lodged by the father of the deceased against four accused persons, (1) Ankit Uttam(Husband), (2) Snehlata, (3) Vinod Uttam and (4) Swati alias Happy. It is alleged that they have causing cruelty and demanding illegal dowry and committed murder of the deceased within three months of her marriage at her matrimonial home by way of strangulation.

¶11

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have been recorded and now the evidence of PW-5-Investiating Officer is continuing, hence it is appeared that it is the last evidence of the prosecution which is in continuation. The deceased has died by way of unnatural death within three months of her marriage due to cruelty and demand of dowry.

¶12

CRLR No. 807 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has to ask some questions which has been left to be asked from PW-1 and PW-2, Santosh Uttam and Kuldeep Uttam respectively and he had filed an application under Section 348 of BNSS. The revisionist has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State) ; 2013 (4) SCC (Cri) 828 . He relied on paragraph no. 9 of the said judgement which reads as under:"

¶15

"In Mohanlal Shamji Soni V. Union of India and another, AIR 1991 SC 1346, this Court examined the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and held that it is a cardinal rule of the law of evidence, that the best available evidence must be brought before the court to prove a fact, or a point in issue. However, the court is under an obligation to discharge its statutory functions, whether discretionary or obligatory, according to law and hence ensure that justice is done. The court has a duty to determine the truth, and to render a just decision. the same is also the object of Section 311 Cr.P.C, wherein the court may exercise its discretionary authority at any stage of the enquiry, trial or other proceedings, to summon any person as a witness though not yet summoned as a witness, or to recall or re-examine any person, though not yet summoned as a witness, who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute, because if the judgments happen to be rendered on an inchoate, inconclusive and speculative presentation of facts, the ends of justice would be defeated....

¶16

"..... the Criminal Court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any such person even if the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the Court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, and fair play and good sense appear to be the only safe guides and that only the requirements of justice command the examination of any person which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."

¶17

It is settled principle of law that each and every case has to be decided on its own facts. There has to be fair trial. In the present matter, the deceased had died unnaturally at her matrimonial home after cruelty and demand of dowry and by way of strangulation that too within three months of her marriage as alleged in the FIR. The witnesses of fact PW-1 to PW-4 are completed and the accused/revisionist has cross-examined them in detail. Now, the session trial is at the final stage and only evidence of investigation officer is continuing. At that stage, the said

¶18

CRLR No. 807 of 2026

¶19

3

¶20

application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist.

¶21

It is stated in the said application that two witnesses of fact Santosh Uttam and Kuldeep Kumar had been examined and they had been crossexamined also. An FIR has been lodged by the revisionist/accused - Ankit Uttam against Virendra Kumar, brother-in-law of deceased at case crime No. 0056 of 2024, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Bakewear, District Fatehpur, which is related with the death of deceased. The presence of the accused at the alleged place of incident and time and rope alleged to be used in the said offence and its recovery and regarding agreement with brother-in-law of deceased that has to be cross-examined.

¶22

Learned trial court has examined all these facts and mentioned that the appropriate time had been provided to the accused for cross examination with the prosecution witnesses. Said application has been filed to cause delay of session trial and at that stage, no detail question has been mentioned by the accused/revisionist in his application under Section 348 of BNSS. The detail cross-examination had already been conducted. The plea of alibi which is alleged to be taken by the accused/revisionist that could be taken by him in his defence which is yet to be started.

¶23

The nature of crime is of very serious and heinous nature. the deceased died after three months of her marriage at her matrimonial home. The prosecution has examined all the witnesses and ample and proper opportunity has been provided to the accused/revisionist. There is no apparent reason for re-examination of PW-1 and PW-2 in view of facts and circumstances of this case.

¶24

In view thereof, the criminal revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The criminal revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶25

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶26

February 4, 2026 sfa/

¶27

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

Ankit Uttam v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Uttam v. State of Up 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

Nekpal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Agrawal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sangam Lal Aarak vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Singh Fauji and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarveer Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Murari Shankar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others