Sonu State of U.P. and Another v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) Bhanu Prakash Verma

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Mrityunjay Singh, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no., 2and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Under challenge is the impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 3, Mathura, in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 2024 (State Vs. Girvar and 2 others) arising out of case crime no. 84 of 2023, under Sections 308, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Chhata, District Mathura whereby the revisionist has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial under the aforesaid sections.

3. The brief contents of the prosecution is that there was some altercation took place between complainant/opposite party no. 2 and Sonu as well as his mother on 12.3.2023. Due to said altercation, on 13.3.2023 at 7.15 a.m. when opposite party no. 2 was sitting in the house of his brother Rajesh along with his brothers, namely, Rajesh and Harishanker, then Sonu along with his father Girvar and his mother Kiran and one Rajveer came at the spot. Rajveer was having an axe in his hand, Girvar was having a farsa in his hand, Kiran was having a hasiya and Sonu was having a lathi. All of them came together and started abusing and assaulting with weapons me and his brothers, namely, Rajesh and Harishanker, due to which complainant got injuries on his head, ears and body. Rajesh and Harishanker suffered head and body injuries. Rajveer kicked me in the buttocks, causing severe injuries to my genitals and stomach. On hearing the screams, neighbours, namely, Jitendra S/o Jogendra Singh, Bhedan Singh S/o Kishan Singh, and other villagers arrived at the spot, rescued me, and witnessed the incident. Accused fled away as soon as they had the opportunity, threatening to kill me in future.

4. During investigation, the complicity of Sonu has not been found hence, his name was exonerated. The charge sheet was filed only against Girvar, Smt. Kiran and Rajveer, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC. 2 CRLR No. 7994 of 2025 Learned trial court took cognizance and the case was committed to the sessions Judge for trial. The charge was framed against the charge sheeted accused persons. During trial, statement of P.W-1 had been recorded and his cross-examination was completed. Thereafter, complainant filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was allowed and the revisionist/Sonu has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Hence the present criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and it is liable to set aside. It is non-speaking, unreasonable and contradict to the legal provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kailash v. State of Rajasthan and another (2008) 14 SCC 51 and Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92. It is further submitted that prima facie, there is no evidence against the revisionist in the said crime and the nature of injuries is not upto ingredients of Section 308 IPC. It is next submitted that revisionist is a student and his entire career would be spoiled. Neither the revisionist was present at the spot nor he has committed any offence. It is alleged that revisionist caused injuries to the injured whereas he was not present at the spot. The FIR was lodged with the delay of 4 days. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the revision is entitled to be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has contended that FIR was lodged under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC on 17.3.2023 against named accused persons, namely, Sonu/revisionist, Girvar, Smt. Kiran and Rajveer. The incident took place on 13.3.2023 at 7.15 a.m. due to enmity of the altercation which took place on 12.3.2023. Hence the motive was very much present.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has further contended that medico legal examination of injured/Rajesh took place on 16.3.2023 where he was three injuries (i) Lacerated wound over left side parietal bone posterior part size 2cm x .. blood ... (ii) Complain of pain left hand and swelling (iii) Abrasion over fight shoulder size 4cm x 3cm black in ; colour. Harishanker was having two injuries (i) Lacerated wound mid occipital region size 2cm x 0.5cm blood present (ii) Reddish in opinion injury no. 2 simple in; nature about 2/34 days. Complainant/Dinesh was having five injuries (i) Lacerated wound mid parietal size 1.5cm x 5cm blood clot present (ii) Lacerated wound over left parietal bone size 2cm x 0.5cm blood clot present (iii) Lacerated wound over left parietal just near injury no. 2 size 10 x 0.5cm blood clot present [according to above three injuries portent complaint severe head ache/nausea/vomiting) (iv) Lacerated wound over left side upper part size 1cm x 0.5cm blood clot present (v) complain of pain over left forearm.

8. As per Radiologist X-ray Report of Dinesh/complainant, C.T. Head: Intra cranial hematoma parietal region left side and oedema seen.

9. During investigation, injury reports of complainant/Dinesh, Jitendra and 3 CRLR No. 7994 of 2025 Bhedan Singh have supported the prosecution version and specifically mentioned the role of the revisionist/Sonu in the said incident. Even then charge sheet has not been filed against the revisionist whereas he was the main accused as he was having lathi in his hand and the injured has suffered injury in their hands and all the injuries are of lacerated nature, which may be caused by any hard and blunt object. Prima facie, it corroborates with the lathi which is alleged to be used by the revisionist. After framing of the charge, statement of Dinesh was recorded as P.W-1 before the trial court and he has been duly examined by the accused persons. In his examination-in- chief, he has verified the incident which is alleged to have occurred on 13.3.2023. Complainant/Dinesh/P.W-1 in his statement specifically defines the role of the revisionist in the said offence and he has been thoroughly the complainant/injured/Dinesh has examined. The evidence supported the entire prosecution story which prima facie corroborates with the prosecution version. led by

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra) has held that the nature of evidence should be much more than prima facie evidence which is required for framing of the charge. If the evidence is recorded before the trial court and if not controverted it may be to the make conviction then the accused may be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

11. After consideration of all these facts and provisions of law, it is crystal clear that name of revisionist is very much mentioned in the complaint. The enmity and motive is also very clear in the complaint. All the injured witnesses, complainant and independent witnesses have verified the role of the revisionist in the said offence during investigation. The nature of the injuries caused to the injured persons and the lathi shown in the hand of the revisionist corroborate with each other. The injured persons have suffered injuries on the head and vital parts of the body which are mainly lacerated wounds.

12. In view of the above, there is neither illegality nor any irregularity in the impugned order and the revision is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. November 28, 2025 M. Tarik (Abdul Shahid,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Mrityunjay Singh, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no., 2and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Under challenge is the impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 3, Mathura, in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 2024 (State Vs. Girvar and 2 others) arising out of case crime no. 84 of 2023, under Sections 308, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Chhata, District Mathura whereby the revisionist has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial under the aforesaid sections.

3. The brief contents of the prosecution is that there was some altercation took place between complainant/opposite party no. 2 and Sonu as well as his mother on 12.3.2023. Due to said altercation, on 13.3.2023 at 7.15 a.m. when opposite party no. 2 was sitting in the house of his brother Rajesh along with his brothers, namely, Rajesh and Harishanker, then Sonu along with his father Girvar and his mother Kiran and one Rajveer came at the spot. Rajveer was having an axe in his hand, Girvar was having a farsa in his hand, Kiran was having a hasiya and Sonu was having a lathi. All of them came together and started abusing and assaulting with weapons me and his brothers, namely, Rajesh and Harishanker, due to which complainant got injuries on his head, ears and body. Rajesh and Harishanker suffered head and body injuries. Rajveer kicked me in the buttocks, causing severe injuries to my genitals and stomach. On hearing the screams, neighbours, namely, Jitendra S/o Jogendra Singh, Bhedan Singh S/o Kishan Singh, and other villagers arrived at the spot, rescued me, and witnessed the incident. Accused fled away as soon as they had the opportunity, threatening to kill me in future.

4. During investigation, the complicity of Sonu has not been found hence, his name was exonerated. The charge sheet was filed only against Girvar, Smt. Kiran and Rajveer, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC. 2 CRLR No. 7994 of 2025 Learned trial court took cognizance and the case was committed to the sessions Judge for trial. The charge was framed against the charge sheeted accused persons. During trial, statement of P.W-1 had been recorded and his cross-examination was completed. Thereafter, complainant filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was allowed and the revisionist/Sonu has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Hence the present criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and it is liable to set aside. It is non-speaking, unreasonable and contradict to the legal provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kailash v. State of Rajasthan and another (2008) 14 SCC 51 and Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92. It is further submitted that prima facie, there is no evidence against the revisionist in the said crime and the nature of injuries is not upto ingredients of Section 308 IPC. It is next submitted that revisionist is a student and his entire career would be spoiled. Neither the revisionist was present at the spot nor he has committed any offence. It is alleged that revisionist caused injuries to the injured whereas he was not present at the spot. The FIR was lodged with the delay of 4 days. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the revision is entitled to be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has contended that FIR was lodged under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC on 17.3.2023 against named accused persons, namely, Sonu/revisionist, Girvar, Smt. Kiran and Rajveer. The incident took place on 13.3.2023 at 7.15 a.m. due to enmity of the altercation which took place on 12.3.2023. Hence the motive was very much present.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has further contended that medico legal examination of injured/Rajesh took place on 16.3.2023 where he was three injuries (i) Lacerated wound over left side parietal bone posterior part size 2cm x .. blood ... (ii) Complain of pain left hand and swelling (iii) Abrasion over fight shoulder size 4cm x 3cm black in ; colour. Harishanker was having two injuries (i) Lacerated wound mid occipital region size 2cm x 0.5cm blood present (ii) Reddish in opinion injury no. 2 simple in; nature about 2/34 days. Complainant/Dinesh was having five injuries (i) Lacerated wound mid parietal size 1.5cm x 5cm blood clot present (ii) Lacerated wound over left parietal bone size 2cm x 0.5cm blood clot present (iii) Lacerated wound over left parietal just near injury no. 2 size 10 x 0.5cm blood clot present [according to above three injuries portent complaint severe head ache/nausea/vomiting) (iv) Lacerated wound over left side upper part size 1cm x 0.5cm blood clot present (v) complain of pain over left forearm.

8. As per Radiologist X-ray Report of Dinesh/complainant, C.T. Head: Intra cranial hematoma parietal region left side and oedema seen.

9. During investigation, injury reports of complainant/Dinesh, Jitendra and 3 CRLR No. 7994 of 2025 Bhedan Singh have supported the prosecution version and specifically mentioned the role of the revisionist/Sonu in the said incident. Even then charge sheet has not been filed against the revisionist whereas he was the main accused as he was having lathi in his hand and the injured has suffered injury in their hands and all the injuries are of lacerated nature, which may be caused by any hard and blunt object. Prima facie, it corroborates with the lathi which is alleged to be used by the revisionist. After framing of the charge, statement of Dinesh was recorded as P.W-1 before the trial court and he has been duly examined by the accused persons. In his examination-in- chief, he has verified the incident which is alleged to have occurred on 13.3.2023. Complainant/Dinesh/P.W-1 in his statement specifically defines the role of the revisionist in the said offence and he has been thoroughly the complainant/injured/Dinesh has examined. The evidence supported the entire prosecution story which prima facie corroborates with the prosecution version. led by

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra) has held that the nature of evidence should be much more than prima facie evidence which is required for framing of the charge. If the evidence is recorded before the trial court and if not controverted it may be to the make conviction then the accused may be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

11. After consideration of all these facts and provisions of law, it is crystal clear that name of revisionist is very much mentioned in the complaint. The enmity and motive is also very clear in the complaint. All the injured witnesses, complainant and independent witnesses have verified the role of the revisionist in the said offence during investigation. The nature of the injuries caused to the injured persons and the lathi shown in the hand of the revisionist corroborate with each other. The injured persons have suffered injuries on the head and vital parts of the body which are mainly lacerated wounds.

12. In view of the above, there is neither illegality nor any irregularity in the impugned order and the revision is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. November 28, 2025 M. Tarik (Abdul Shahid,J.)