State of U.P. and Another v. Party

1. Heard learned counsel for the Revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.7.2024 passed by learned Session Judge, Rampur in Session Trial No. 165 of 2022(State Vs. Rashid and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0477 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 328, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Tanda, District Rampur, whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and Arif son of Ashak Ali and Babu, son of Mustak have been summoned under Section 498-A, 323, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act to face the trial.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the Revisionists that both the Revisionists were named in the FIR, but after investigation, nothing was found by the Investigating Officer against them and they were exonerated from the chargesheet. It has not been considered by the learned Trial Court that the Revisionist No. 1 (Arif) is brother-in-law and the Revisionist No. 2 (Babu) is uncle-in-law of the sister of opposite party No. 2, who are not living with the other accused. They have been falsely implicated in the present case due to malafide intentions. In the postmortem report, no external injury has been found, neither the witnesses have stated any specific role regarding the Revisionists. The learned Trial Court, without considering the facts and evidences available on the record, has passed the impugned order in a cursory manner which 2 CRLR No. 4045 of 2024 is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. The learned Trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction and has summoned the Revisionists in a casual and mechanical manner. There is nothing available on record for summoning the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C and therefore, the impugned order is against the fact and law and the same is liable to be set aside.

4. Par Contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submission advanced by learned counsel for the Revisionists and argued that at the time of consideration of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., only the evidences adduced before the Trial Court are to be considered. There are four witnesses being examined who have supported the prosecution story and given evidence against the Revisionists. The learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the accused to face trial.

5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

6. From the perusal, it is apparent that an F.I.R. was lodged against Rashid, husband of the deceased, Ashak Ali, father-in-law of the deceased, Arif, brother-in-law of the deceased and Babu, uncle-in-law of the deceased under Section 498-A, 328, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. After the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against Rashid and Ashak Ali and Revisionists have been exonerated from the chargesheet.

7. It is not disputed that the wife of the accused Rashid has died within five years of her marriage. As per the copy of the postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. PW-1 Ashraf, informant and brother of the deceased, P.W.-2, Arif Ali, brother of the deceased, P.W.-3, Shama Parveen, sister of the deceased have supported the prosecution story and given evidence against Revisionists.

8. P.W.-3, Shama Parveen, sister of the deceased specifically stated that on hearing about the illness of the deceased Shaeen, she went to her room and saw that Shaeen was lying on a cot and was told by Shaeen that her husband, brother-in-law, father-in-law and uncle-in-law have given 3 CRLR No. 4045 of 2024 poison to kill her for the demand of dowry. This statement of PW-3 may amount to a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. There are prima facie evidences regarding the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased. If it is presumed that the deceased has committed suicide by administering poison herself, it will not amount to a natural death, and if the prosecution succeeds in establishing any demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased, the accused persons may be held guilty under Section 304-B I.P.C. along with other sections in the chargesheet against them.

9. Therefore, there are cogent and palpable evidence available on record which indicates more than a prima facie case against the Revisionist- accused.

10. For consideration of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the guiding principle in the case of Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors, (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Constitutional Bench), that the power to summon a person as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary and it should be exercised sparingly for summoning any person. The evidence adduced before the Court must be strong and cogent suggesting a greater than prima-facie case though it need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence should be such that if unrebutted, it would lead to the conviction of the person being summoned.

11. If in any case an accused has been discharged by the trial Court even then the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked against such person. This principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs The State Of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the necessity of strong and cogent evidence as laid down in Hardeep Singh (supra) and further clarified that merely because a person was discharged does not shield them from being summoned if, during the trial of the co-accused , strong evidence surfaces against them.

12. In a case of Juhru and others Vs. Karim and another (2023) 5 SCC 406, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the requirement of high standard of evidence. The Hon'ble Court stressed that the standard for 4 CRLR No. 4045 of 2024 summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is much higher than the standard required for framing a charge. It must be strong and credible evidence, pointing to the person's complicity.

13. In view of facts and circumstances of the case and the law discussed above, this Court finds no error of jurisdiction, impropriety or illegality in the approach adopted by the Trial Court. The order rejecting application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be termed perverse or unjustifiable, warranting interference in the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

14. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the opinion that the Criminal Revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

15. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed.

16. The observations made herein are limited only for the purpose of deciding the instant Revision and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the case during trial.

17. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously. December 1, 2025 ADY (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the Revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.7.2024 passed by learned Session Judge, Rampur in Session Trial No. 165 of 2022(State Vs. Rashid and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0477 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 328, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Tanda, District Rampur, whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and Arif son of Ashak Ali and Babu, son of Mustak have been summoned under Section 498-A, 323, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act to face the trial.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the Revisionists that both the Revisionists were named in the FIR, but after investigation, nothing was found by the Investigating Officer against them and they were exonerated from the chargesheet. It has not been considered by the learned Trial Court that the Revisionist No. 1 (Arif) is brother-in-law and the Revisionist No. 2 (Babu) is uncle-in-law of the sister of opposite party No. 2, who are not living with the other accused. They have been falsely implicated in the present case due to malafide intentions. In the postmortem report, no external injury has been found, neither the witnesses have stated any specific role regarding the Revisionists. The learned Trial Court, without considering the facts and evidences available on the record, has passed the impugned order in a cursory manner which 2 CRLR No. 4045 of 2024 is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. The learned Trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction and has summoned the Revisionists in a casual and mechanical manner. There is nothing available on record for summoning the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C and therefore, the impugned order is against the fact and law and the same is liable to be set aside.

4. Par Contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submission advanced by learned counsel for the Revisionists and argued that at the time of consideration of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., only the evidences adduced before the Trial Court are to be considered. There are four witnesses being examined who have supported the prosecution story and given evidence against the Revisionists. The learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the accused to face trial.

5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

6. From the perusal, it is apparent that an F.I.R. was lodged against Rashid, husband of the deceased, Ashak Ali, father-in-law of the deceased, Arif, brother-in-law of the deceased and Babu, uncle-in-law of the deceased under Section 498-A, 328, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. After the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against Rashid and Ashak Ali and Revisionists have been exonerated from the chargesheet.

7. It is not disputed that the wife of the accused Rashid has died within five years of her marriage. As per the copy of the postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. PW-1 Ashraf, informant and brother of the deceased, P.W.-2, Arif Ali, brother of the deceased, P.W.-3, Shama Parveen, sister of the deceased have supported the prosecution story and given evidence against Revisionists.

8. P.W.-3, Shama Parveen, sister of the deceased specifically stated that on hearing about the illness of the deceased Shaeen, she went to her room and saw that Shaeen was lying on a cot and was told by Shaeen that her husband, brother-in-law, father-in-law and uncle-in-law have given 3 CRLR No. 4045 of 2024 poison to kill her for the demand of dowry. This statement of PW-3 may amount to a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. There are prima facie evidences regarding the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased. If it is presumed that the deceased has committed suicide by administering poison herself, it will not amount to a natural death, and if the prosecution succeeds in establishing any demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased, the accused persons may be held guilty under Section 304-B I.P.C. along with other sections in the chargesheet against them.

9. Therefore, there are cogent and palpable evidence available on record which indicates more than a prima facie case against the Revisionist- accused.

10. For consideration of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the guiding principle in the case of Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors, (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Constitutional Bench), that the power to summon a person as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary and it should be exercised sparingly for summoning any person. The evidence adduced before the Court must be strong and cogent suggesting a greater than prima-facie case though it need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence should be such that if unrebutted, it would lead to the conviction of the person being summoned.

11. If in any case an accused has been discharged by the trial Court even then the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked against such person. This principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs The State Of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the necessity of strong and cogent evidence as laid down in Hardeep Singh (supra) and further clarified that merely because a person was discharged does not shield them from being summoned if, during the trial of the co-accused , strong evidence surfaces against them.

12. In a case of Juhru and others Vs. Karim and another (2023) 5 SCC 406, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the requirement of high standard of evidence. The Hon'ble Court stressed that the standard for 4 CRLR No. 4045 of 2024 summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is much higher than the standard required for framing a charge. It must be strong and credible evidence, pointing to the person's complicity.

13. In view of facts and circumstances of the case and the law discussed above, this Court finds no error of jurisdiction, impropriety or illegality in the approach adopted by the Trial Court. The order rejecting application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be termed perverse or unjustifiable, warranting interference in the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

14. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the opinion that the Criminal Revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

15. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed.

16. The observations made herein are limited only for the purpose of deciding the instant Revision and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the case during trial.

17. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously. December 1, 2025 ADY (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)