State of U.P. and Another v. Party

Brief facts of the case:-

3. An N.C.R. No. 269 of 2017 was registered at Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur to the incident dated 04.12.2017 on the facts that Dharmendra and Jaihind came to the room of informant on

04.12.2017 and took him to Shivam Palace for attending marriage. When the informant reached at Shivam Palace, Vipin and Roop Singh met and they stopped him. Vipin and Roop Singh started beating the informant with iron rod and hit on his head in which he sustained injuries. Thereafter, all the four persons run away from 2 CRLR No. 603 of 2023 there in a Car. The injured was medically examined at C.H.C. Rath and seven injuries were found on his body. The doctor advised for X- ray and on the basis of medical report, a first information report in Case Crime No. 840 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur was registered against the accused Vipin, Roop Singh, Dharmendra and Jaihind.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and during investigation, statements of some independent witnesses were recorded and involvement of the revisionists in the alleged crime were found false and charge-sheet was not submitted against them. During trial, statements of PW-1 Priyesh Kumar, PW-2 Manvendra Singh and PW-3 Dr. Ravi Pratap have been recorded. Thereafter an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no. 2 and the revisionists have been summoned by the learned trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 23.11.2022. Hence, the instant revision. Argument advanced on behalf of the revisionists:-

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that impugned order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the trial court is illegal as while summoning the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. trial court did not record any finding that more than prima-facie case is made out against the revisionists, which was necessary to summon them under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

6. He further submits that even if the prosecution story is taken to be true, no role of beating has been assigned to the revisionists. It is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that the revisionists had taken the injured with them to attend the marriage where Vipin and Roop Singh hit him by iron rod. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the independent witnesses Sanjay Sen, Jagdish, Mohan, Achhelal and Jitendra; who in their statements stated that the revisionists were not involved in commission of the crime and the police did not submit charge sheet against them. He next submits that the injured Priyesh Kumar in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and even before the trial court as PW-1, has not stated about previous enmity with the revisionists and that the revisionists 3 CRLR No. 603 of 2023 had taken him to the place of occurrence with an ulterior motive. PW- 1 in his statement has not stated that both the revisionists have also beaten with other accused persons. PW-2 Manvendra Singh in his statement stated that he reached at the place of occurrence after hearing the noise and found that Vipin, Roop Singh, Dharmendra and Jaihind were beating the injured with iron rod and danda. He also stated that he saw all the four persons beating the injured which is contrary to the statement of PW-1 Priyesh Kumar but the learned trial court has not stated about the contradiction in the statements of PW- 1 and PW-2. While passing the impugned order, the court concerned did not consider this fact and in routine manner summoned the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

7. He next submits that however an additional accused can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the evidence laid before the trial court but before summoning him, it is the duty of the trial court to consider the other relevant factors including the material available on record collected by the I.O. during investigation.

8. He next submits that however power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary power but the same cannot be exercised in routine manner and this power should be exercised sparingly only in appropriate cases, where there is strong evidence to summon such accused.

9. He further submits that in the present case even from the statements of the witnesses recorded before the trial court, it reflects that they very casually disclosed the name of the revisionists in the commission of crime but the statement of PW-1 shows that there was no previous enmity between the parties. He also submits that there is contradiction in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 and their testimonies were not of such quality on the basis of which revisionists should be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

10. He next submits that therefore, impugned order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the court concerned is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Argument advanced on behalf of the State

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer and 4 CRLR No. 603 of 2023 submits that from the statements of PW-1 Priyesh Kumar, PW-2 Manvendra Singh and PW-3 Dr. Ravi Pratap recorded before the trial court, it is apparent that they specifically disclosed the name of the revisionists and from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, it is also apparent that more than prima-facie case is made out against them and therefore, while summoning them under Section 319 Cr.P.C . court concerned did not commit any illegality.

12. He further submits that law is settled that while summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., trial court should consider only the statements of the witnesses recorded before it and trial court has rightly evaluated the statements of the witnesses. He further submits that PW-1 Priyesh Kumar is the injured witness and he in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and even before the court has specifically stated that the revisionists have also committed the offence. His statement cannot be disbelieved and trial court has rightly summoned the revisionists.

13. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court passed in the case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another 2025 INSC 27 and Shiv Baran Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another decided on 16th July, 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.3008 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.3993 of 2025.

14. He further submits that therefore the instant revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Analysis and conclusion:-

15. In the instant revision, revisionists challenged the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the trial court by which they have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

16. Section 319 Cr.P.C. read as under:- "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against 5 CRLR No. 603 of 2023 such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then? (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."

17. Therefore, from Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that trial court is empowered to summon a person to face trial, who is not the accused in the case on the basis of the evidence. The word 'evidence' used in Section 319 Cr.P.C. is significant. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others (2014) 3 SCC 92 held that the word 'evidence' used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. indicates, the word 'evidence' is limited to the evidence recorded during trial.

18. The Apex Court in case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore (supra) also held that trial court can add an individual as accused only on the basis of the evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of the materials available in the charge-sheet or the case diary because such materials contained in the charge-sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence.

19. The Apex Court in the case of Shiv Baran (supra) also held that trial court can exercise power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only on the basis of the evidence adduced 6 CRLR No. 603 of 2023 before it and not any other material collected during investigation.

20. Therefore, from the above dictum of the Apex Court, it is apparent that while invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. trial court should consider the statements of the witnesses adduced before it and it should not place reliance upon the material available in the charge- sheet or the case diary.

21. The law with regard to the summoning of an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is settled that this power is an extraordinary power, which should be used sparingly with circumspection and while passing the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. court must consider whether more than prima-facie case is made out, or not. For summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. mere prima-facie case is not sufficient. [See: Constitution Bench judgment of Apex Court Hardeep Singh (surpa)]. Therefore, in light of the above principles, it is to analyze, whether before the trial court material was sufficient to summon the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. or not.

22. From the impugned order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the trial court, it reflects that the statements of PW-1 Priyesh Kumar, PW-2 Manvendra Singh and PW-3 Dr. Ravi Pratap have been recorded. PW-1 Priyesh Kumar is the injured witness. PW-2 Manvendra Singh is an eye witness of the occurrence. Perusal of F.I.R. shows that it was registered on the basis of tehrir given by the informant. The revisionists Dharmendra and Jaihind visited to his room on 04.12.2017 at about 10.00 P.M. and they took him to Shivam Palace for attending marriage. When the informant reached at Shivam Palace, Vipin and Roop Singh met and they stopped him and assaulted upon him with iron rod. They also taken away mobile phone and golden chain and all the four persons run away from there in a car.

23. From perusal of the F.I.R. and statement of PW-1 Priyesh Kumar, it reflects that the role of the revisionists is that they accompanied the informant/injured to Shivam Palace where Vipin and Roop Singh assaulted the informant by iron rod, in which he sustained serious injuries. 7 CRLR No. 603 of 2023

24. In the first information report it is not written that there was any enmity between the revisionists and the injured, even it is not stated that any quarrel has taken place before the alleged incident.

25. It is admitted to the prosecution that on the basis of the statements of some independent witnesses Sanjay Sen, Jagdish, Mohan and Achhelal and Jitendra were recorded by the Investigating Officer, who were present at the place of occurrence, charge sheet was submitted only against the accused Vipin and Roop Singh and charge sheet against the revisionists was not submitted.

26. The statement of PW-1 Priyesh Kumar was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 03.01.2020 in which he stated that he know the accused persons before the date of incident. On 04.12.2017 Dharmendra and Jaihind came at his room and they took him at Shivam Palace, where the accused Vipin and Roop Singh started abusing him. Accused Roop Singh and Vipin hit him by iron rod and he sustained injury on his head and other parts of the body. Thereafter, all the four accused persons ran away in a car giving threat. PW-1 has not stated that there was previous enmity between him and the revisionists or any quarrel took place between them before the incident. This witness was duly cross-examined. During cross-examination, he also stated that Dharmendra and Jaihind took him on the pretext of attending marriage.

27. It is also relevant to mention here that PW-1 Priyesh Kumar in his statement has not stated that the revisionists have also beaten him.

28. PW-2 Manvendra Singh in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 04.12.2017 at about 10.00 P.M. he reached at the place of occurrence after hearing some noise. He saw that Vipin and Roop Singh, Dharmendra and Jaihind were beating the informant Priyesh Kumar by iron rod and danda. He saw that four persons were beating him. It is relevant to mention here that PW-1 Priyesh Kumar has not stated in his evidence that he was beaten by all the four persons but he has specifically stated that Roop Singh and Vipin had hit him by iron rod. PW-2 Manvendra Singh has given a new story that PW-1 was beaten by all four persons. In other words, in can be said that there are major contradictions between the statements of PW-1 and 8 CRLR No. 603 of 2023 PW-2 about the role of the revisionists Dharmendra and Jaihind but learned trial court has not mentioned about the said contradictions in the impugned order.

29. Further, from the impugned order dated 23.11.2022, it could not be reflected that trial court recorded any finding, whether more than prima-facie case is made out or not against the revisionists, which was necessary in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in case of Hardeep Singh (supra). Learned trial court has also stated in the impugned order that prima facie offence under Sections 323/34, 308/34, 504 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists.

30. It reflects from the impugned order dated 23.11.2022 that without properly analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case, trial court blindly accepted the PW-1 Priyesh Kumar, PW-2 Manvendra Singh and PW-3 Dr. Ravi Pratap and summoned the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was not permissible.

31. Therefore, from the discussion made above, in considered view of this Court, impugned order dated 23.11.2022 is illegal and is liable to be set-aside.

32. Accordingly, impugned order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Session Trial No. 130 of 2018 (State Vs. Roop Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 840 of 2017, under Sections 323/34, 308/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur is hereby set aside. Instant revision stands allowed.

33. It is made clear that the view expressed by this Court at the time of disposal of this revision is only with regard to the present revisionists in the present revision and it will not give effect upon the learned trial court during trial of this case. October 15, 2025 Rmk. (Chawan Prakash,J.) RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brief facts of the case:-

3. An N.C.R. No. 269 of 2017 was registered at Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur to the incident dated 04.12.2017 on the facts that Dharmendra and Jaihind came to the room of informant on

04.12.2017 and took him to Shivam Palace for attending marriage. When the informant reached at Shivam Palace, Vipin and Roop Singh met and they stopped him. Vipin and Roop Singh started beating the informant with iron rod and hit on his head in which he sustained injuries. Thereafter, all the four persons run away from 2 CRLR No. 603 of 2023 there in a Car. The injured was medically examined at C.H.C. Rath and seven injuries were found on his body. The doctor advised for X- ray and on the basis of medical report, a first information report in Case Crime No. 840 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur was registered against the accused Vipin, Roop Singh, Dharmendra and Jaihind.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and during investigation, statements of some independent witnesses were recorded and involvement of the revisionists in the alleged crime were found false and charge-sheet was not submitted against them. During trial, statements of PW-1 Priyesh Kumar, PW-2 Manvendra Singh and PW-3 Dr. Ravi Pratap have been recorded. Thereafter an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no. 2 and the revisionists have been summoned by the learned trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 23.11.2022. Hence, the instant revision. Argument advanced on behalf of the revisionists:-

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that impugned order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the trial court is illegal as while summoning the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. trial court did not record any finding that more than prima-facie case is made out against the revisionists, which was necessary to summon them under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

6. He further submits that even if the prosecution story is taken to be true, no role of beating has been assigned to the revisionists. It is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that the revisionists had taken the injured with them to attend the marriage where Vipin and Roop Singh hit him by iron rod. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the independent witnesses Sanjay Sen, Jagdish, Mohan, Achhelal and Jitendra; who in their statements stated that the revisionists were not involved in commission of the crime and the police did not submit charge sheet against them. He next submits that the injured Priyesh Kumar in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and even before the trial court as PW-1, has not stated about previous enmity with the revisionists and that the revisionists 3 CRLR No. 603 of 2023 had taken him to the place of occurrence with an ulterior motive. PW- 1 in his statement has not stated that both the revisionists have also beaten with other accused persons. PW-2 Manvendra Singh in his statement stated that he reached at the place of occurrence after hearing the noise and found that Vipin, Roop Singh, Dharmendra and Jaihind were beating the injured with iron rod and danda. He also stated that he saw all the four persons beating the injured which is contrary to the statement of PW-1 Priyesh Kumar but the learned trial court has not stated about the contradiction in the statements of PW- 1 and PW-2. While passing the impugned order, the court concerned did not consider this fact and in routine manner summoned the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

7. He next submits that however an additional accused can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the evidence laid before the trial court but before summoning him, it is the duty of the trial court to consider the other relevant factors including the material available on record collected by the I.O. during investigation.

8. He next submits that however power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary power but the same cannot be exercised in routine manner and this power should be exercised sparingly only in appropriate cases, where there is strong evidence to summon such accused.

9. He further submits that in the present case even from the statements of the witnesses recorded before the trial court, it reflects that they very casually disclosed the name of the revisionists in the commission of crime but the statement of PW-1 shows that there was no previous enmity between the parties. He also submits that there is contradiction in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 and their testimonies were not of such quality on the basis of which revisionists should be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

10. He next submits that therefore, impugned order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the court concerned is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Argument advanced on behalf of the State

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer and 4 CRLR No. 603 of 2023 submits that from the statements of PW-1 Priyesh Kumar, PW-2 Manvendra Singh and PW-3 Dr. Ravi Pratap recorded before the trial court, it is apparent that they specifically disclosed the name of the revisionists and from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, it is also apparent that more than prima-facie case is made out against them and therefore, while summoning them under Section 319 Cr.P.C . court concerned did not commit any illegality.

12. He further submits that law is settled that while summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., trial court should consider only the statements of the witnesses recorded before it and trial court has rightly evaluated the statements of the witnesses. He further submits that PW-1 Priyesh Kumar is the injured witness and he in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and even before the court has specifically stated that the revisionists have also committed the offence. His statement cannot be disbelieved and trial court has rightly summoned the revisionists.

13. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court passed in the case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another 2025 INSC 27 and Shiv Baran Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another decided on 16th July, 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.3008 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.3993 of 2025.

14. He further submits that therefore the instant revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Analysis and conclusion:-

15. In the instant revision, revisionists challenged the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the trial court by which they have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

16. Section 319 Cr.P.C. read as under:- "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against 5 CRLR No. 603 of 2023 such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then? (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."

17. Therefore, from Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that trial court is empowered to summon a person to face trial, who is not the accused in the case on the basis of the evidence. The word 'evidence' used in Section 319 Cr.P.C. is significant. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others (2014) 3 SCC 92 held that the word 'evidence' used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. indicates, the word 'evidence' is limited to the evidence recorded during trial.

18. The Apex Court in case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore (supra) also held that trial court can add an individual as accused only on the basis of the evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of the materials available in the charge-sheet or the case diary because such materials contained in the charge-sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence.

19. The Apex Court in the case of Shiv Baran (supra) also held that trial court can exercise power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only on the basis of the evidence adduced 6 CRLR No. 603 of 2023 before it and not any other material collected during investigation.

20. Therefore, from the above dictum of the Apex Court, it is apparent that while invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. trial court should consider the statements of the witnesses adduced before it and it should not place reliance upon the material available in the charge- sheet or the case diary.

21. The law with regard to the summoning of an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is settled that this power is an extraordinary power, which should be used sparingly with circumspection and while passing the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. court must consider whether more than prima-facie case is made out, or not. For summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. mere prima-facie case is not sufficient. [See: Constitution Bench judgment of Apex Court Hardeep Singh (surpa)]. Therefore, in light of the above principles, it is to analyze, whether before the trial court material was sufficient to summon the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. or not.

22. From the impugned order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the trial court, it reflects that the statements of PW-1 Priyesh Kumar, PW-2 Manvendra Singh and PW-3 Dr. Ravi Pratap have been recorded. PW-1 Priyesh Kumar is the injured witness. PW-2 Manvendra Singh is an eye witness of the occurrence. Perusal of F.I.R. shows that it was registered on the basis of tehrir given by the informant. The revisionists Dharmendra and Jaihind visited to his room on 04.12.2017 at about 10.00 P.M. and they took him to Shivam Palace for attending marriage. When the informant reached at Shivam Palace, Vipin and Roop Singh met and they stopped him and assaulted upon him with iron rod. They also taken away mobile phone and golden chain and all the four persons run away from there in a car.

23. From perusal of the F.I.R. and statement of PW-1 Priyesh Kumar, it reflects that the role of the revisionists is that they accompanied the informant/injured to Shivam Palace where Vipin and Roop Singh assaulted the informant by iron rod, in which he sustained serious injuries. 7 CRLR No. 603 of 2023

24. In the first information report it is not written that there was any enmity between the revisionists and the injured, even it is not stated that any quarrel has taken place before the alleged incident.

25. It is admitted to the prosecution that on the basis of the statements of some independent witnesses Sanjay Sen, Jagdish, Mohan and Achhelal and Jitendra were recorded by the Investigating Officer, who were present at the place of occurrence, charge sheet was submitted only against the accused Vipin and Roop Singh and charge sheet against the revisionists was not submitted.

26. The statement of PW-1 Priyesh Kumar was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 03.01.2020 in which he stated that he know the accused persons before the date of incident. On 04.12.2017 Dharmendra and Jaihind came at his room and they took him at Shivam Palace, where the accused Vipin and Roop Singh started abusing him. Accused Roop Singh and Vipin hit him by iron rod and he sustained injury on his head and other parts of the body. Thereafter, all the four accused persons ran away in a car giving threat. PW-1 has not stated that there was previous enmity between him and the revisionists or any quarrel took place between them before the incident. This witness was duly cross-examined. During cross-examination, he also stated that Dharmendra and Jaihind took him on the pretext of attending marriage.

27. It is also relevant to mention here that PW-1 Priyesh Kumar in his statement has not stated that the revisionists have also beaten him.

28. PW-2 Manvendra Singh in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 04.12.2017 at about 10.00 P.M. he reached at the place of occurrence after hearing some noise. He saw that Vipin and Roop Singh, Dharmendra and Jaihind were beating the informant Priyesh Kumar by iron rod and danda. He saw that four persons were beating him. It is relevant to mention here that PW-1 Priyesh Kumar has not stated in his evidence that he was beaten by all the four persons but he has specifically stated that Roop Singh and Vipin had hit him by iron rod. PW-2 Manvendra Singh has given a new story that PW-1 was beaten by all four persons. In other words, in can be said that there are major contradictions between the statements of PW-1 and 8 CRLR No. 603 of 2023 PW-2 about the role of the revisionists Dharmendra and Jaihind but learned trial court has not mentioned about the said contradictions in the impugned order.

29. Further, from the impugned order dated 23.11.2022, it could not be reflected that trial court recorded any finding, whether more than prima-facie case is made out or not against the revisionists, which was necessary in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in case of Hardeep Singh (supra). Learned trial court has also stated in the impugned order that prima facie offence under Sections 323/34, 308/34, 504 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists.

30. It reflects from the impugned order dated 23.11.2022 that without properly analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case, trial court blindly accepted the PW-1 Priyesh Kumar, PW-2 Manvendra Singh and PW-3 Dr. Ravi Pratap and summoned the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was not permissible.

31. Therefore, from the discussion made above, in considered view of this Court, impugned order dated 23.11.2022 is illegal and is liable to be set-aside.

32. Accordingly, impugned order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Session Trial No. 130 of 2018 (State Vs. Roop Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 840 of 2017, under Sections 323/34, 308/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur is hereby set aside. Instant revision stands allowed.

33. It is made clear that the view expressed by this Court at the time of disposal of this revision is only with regard to the present revisionists in the present revision and it will not give effect upon the learned trial court during trial of this case. October 15, 2025 Rmk. (Chawan Prakash,J.) RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad