High Court · 2025

2. Though the name of Mr. Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay is shown in the cause list as counsel for Opposite Party No.2 but he is not present.

3. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No.2828 of 2023 (State Vs. Badam Singh and others) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionist had been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302/149, 323/149, 324/149 and 336/149 I.P.C.

4. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the trial court, while exercising its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoning the revisionist to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302/149, 323/149, 324/149 and 336/149 I.P.C., has not considered the testimony of PW-1 Rameshwar Prasad recorded during trial and further the trial court has not recorded any finding in respect of its satisfaction that the evidence available on record regarding the involvement of the revisionist in the crime in question, if not rebutted, is sufficient for his conviction.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the trial court though had referred the testimony of PW-1, recorded during trial, in the impugned order dated 06.06.2024 but has not recorded any finding regarding its sufficiency for conviction of the revisionist. It has further been argued that once the satisfaction of the trial court, in respect of the evidence available on record for summoning of the additional accused, is not recorded, the impugned order dated 06.06.2024 cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has argued that there is categorical testimony of the injured witness i.e. PW-1 recorded before the trial court in which he had taken the name of the revisionist in respect of his involvement in the crime in question. He has further argued that PW-1, in his examination-in-chief before the trial court, had categorically assigned the role of the revisionist in the crime in question and on that basis, the trial court had recorded its satisfaction that there is sufficient evidence available against the revisionist to connect him with the crime in question and further the said evidence, if not rebutted, may lead to his conviction.

7. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents available on record of this revision.

8. The informant had lodged the First Information Report on 7.7.2023 regarding the crime in question and in the said F.I.R., 9 persons including the revisionist have been named as accused. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses including the injured witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there also the name of all the nine persons have been given as accused. The Investigating Officer on the basis of some other statements, recorded during the investigation, came to the conclusion that the revisionist was not present at the place of occurrence of the crime and on that basis, while submitting the Charge-Sheet in the matter, he had expunged the name of the revisionist.

9. During trial, PW-1 i.e. Rameshwar Prasad, who himself is the injured witness, had categorically stated in his examination-in- chief that all the nine persons namely Badam Singh, Man Singh, Ram Kishore, Shivram, Harbhan @ Chotu, Ram Prakash, Rajendra, Kalyan Singh and Pawan were laced with lathi, danda and they committed the crime in question. The testimony of PW-1 recorded during trial even remained intact in his cross examination. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the testimony of PW-1, recorded during trial, is extracted as under:- ननम सनकक रनममशवर पसनद पपत सव० शक रतन सससह उम 67 वरर, " ( समवन ननववत) गनहव महदमवन थननन इरनदतनगर, ननवनसक म०नस० 39/46B पमशन कप छ नहक करतन हह जम०पक० नगर मऊ ररड आगरन ममल ननवनसक- सजलन आगरन। शपथ पमवरक बयनन नकयन नकक- हनसजर अदनलत) ममरम मम सहनयक अधयनपक सम समवन ननववत हह खननदननक हम। घटनन नदननसक 07.07.2023 कक हम। ममरम गनहव कन कनलकचरन ममरम पनस सपबह करकब 8-8.30 बजम कम करकब आयन उसनम बतनयन नक ममरम मकनन मम तपमहनरम खनद कम गडड सम पननक जन रहन हम। उससम घर मम सकलन आ रहक हम यन तर उसमम गडड मम नमटक डलवन ह। इस मनमलम कम मपललजमनन ( ह बनबम रनम, नकशन सससह, रनमपकनश पपत नवधनरनम, और इन सभक लरगर नम एक दर सजससम ममरम मकनन मम सकलन आनन रक जनयम। ममनम कनलकचरन सम कहन नक कप छ नमटक हम डलवन दमगम और कप छ नमटक तपम डलवन दमनन सजससम तपमहनरम मकनन कन बचनव हर जनयम। बजम कम करकब नशवरनम पपत नवधनरनम, कलयनन इसक बनत कर लमकर सपबह करकब 9-9.15 सससह पपत रनम पकनश, बनदनम सससह पपत नवधनरनम हररभनन उरर पवन पपत नशवरनम मननसससह व रनम नकशरर पपतगण बनदनम सससह, रनजमनद छरटम पपत नशवरनम, पपत नवधनरनम यम सब ममरम दरवनजम पर आयम, सनथ सनसजश कम तहत अपनम हनथड मम सलयम लनठक, डणडम सररयन सम हमलन कर नदयन। हमलन ममरम ऊपर तथन ममरम भनई रनजवकर सससह, रनजमश पर नकयन सजससम हमनरम चरटम आई। हम लरग डर कम मनरम घर मम घपसम तर यम सभक लरग घर मम घपस आयम, घर मम रनजवकर कक पतनक सतयवतक, रनजवकर कक पपतक पमनम नम बचननम कन पयनस नकयन तर उनमम धककन दमकर सभक लरग नम घमर अलग कर नदयन और रनजवकर जनन बचननम कम कर रनजवकर कर लनठक सररयन व डणडम सम पहनर नकयम। रनजवकर बमहरश हरकर नगर गयन तर नगरम हहए मम भक इन लरगर नम सररयन लनठक डणडम सम पहनर नकयम। हम लरग छत पर बचननम सलयम G.R. हहलसपटल लम गयम। गयम तर हमनरम भक चरटम आई। रनजवकर कर इलनज कम उसकम बनद रनजवकर कर G.R. सलयम उसकन इलनज चलन, असपतनल मम कप छ समय कम हहलसपटल मम डनकटर न हरनम कक वजह सम तकन बजम इलनज हमतप सजलन असपतनल लमकर आयम और उसकन ममनडकल करनयन। वहनह हमनरन पनहचर आदनमयर रनममशवर, बनबमरनम, नकशन ससह, रनजमश कन भक ममनडकल हहआ। रनजवकर सससह कर नरर सजलन असपतनल सम बमहतर इलनज हमतप शकरनम हनलसपटल एम०जक० ररड आगरन लमकर आयम और वहनह उसकन कर उसकक मवतयप हर गई थक।" इलनज हहआ, और इलनज कम ददरनन नदननसक 10.07.2023 सलयम छत पर चढ गयम। यम

10. The aforesaid testimony of PW-1, in categorical terms, demonstrates that the injured witness had stated before the trial court that the revisionist has been involved in the crime in question and specific role has been assigned to him. The trial court, on the basis of the testimony of PW-1 and other material collected by the Investigating Officer, had formed its opinion that it is a fit case for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and thereby had summoned the revisionist to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302/149, 323/149, 324/149 and 336/149 I.P.C.

11. Once in the First Information Report, the revisionist had been named as an accused and had been assigned categorical role in respect of the crime in question and further in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. his role had been affirmed, even further the injured witness PW-1, while giving his testimony before the trial court, had maintained his stand and had named the revisionist and had also assigned his role in the crime in question, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 06.06.2024.

12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, at this stage, has submitted that the revisionist is ready to appear before the trial court pursuant to the impugned order dated 06.06.2024 and wants to apply for bail. He further submits that a direction may be given to the trial court to consider the revisionist's bail application at the earliest, in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

14. It is expected that if the revisionist appears before the trial court pursuant to the impugned order dated 06.06.2024, the trial court shall consider and decide his bail application expeditiously.

15. For a period of twenty days from today, the execution of non bailable warrant issued against the revisionist shall remain in abeyance. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Salim SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Though the name of Mr. Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay is shown in the cause list as counsel for Opposite Party No.2 but he is not present.

3. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No.2828 of 2023 (State Vs. Badam Singh and others) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionist had been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302/149, 323/149, 324/149 and 336/149 I.P.C.

4. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the trial court, while exercising its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoning the revisionist to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302/149, 323/149, 324/149 and 336/149 I.P.C., has not considered the testimony of PW-1 Rameshwar Prasad recorded during trial and further the trial court has not recorded any finding in respect of its satisfaction that the evidence available on record regarding the involvement of the revisionist in the crime in question, if not rebutted, is sufficient for his conviction.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the trial court though had referred the testimony of PW-1, recorded during trial, in the impugned order dated 06.06.2024 but has not recorded any finding regarding its sufficiency for conviction of the revisionist. It has further been argued that once the satisfaction of the trial court, in respect of the evidence available on record for summoning of the additional accused, is not recorded, the impugned order dated 06.06.2024 cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has argued that there is categorical testimony of the injured witness i.e. PW-1 recorded before the trial court in which he had taken the name of the revisionist in respect of his involvement in the crime in question. He has further argued that PW-1, in his examination-in-chief before the trial court, had categorically assigned the role of the revisionist in the crime in question and on that basis, the trial court had recorded its satisfaction that there is sufficient evidence available against the revisionist to connect him with the crime in question and further the said evidence, if not rebutted, may lead to his conviction.

7. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents available on record of this revision.

8. The informant had lodged the First Information Report on 7.7.2023 regarding the crime in question and in the said F.I.R., 9 persons including the revisionist have been named as accused. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses including the injured witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there also the name of all the nine persons have been given as accused. The Investigating Officer on the basis of some other statements, recorded during the investigation, came to the conclusion that the revisionist was not present at the place of occurrence of the crime and on that basis, while submitting the Charge-Sheet in the matter, he had expunged the name of the revisionist.

9. During trial, PW-1 i.e. Rameshwar Prasad, who himself is the injured witness, had categorically stated in his examination-in- chief that all the nine persons namely Badam Singh, Man Singh, Ram Kishore, Shivram, Harbhan @ Chotu, Ram Prakash, Rajendra, Kalyan Singh and Pawan were laced with lathi, danda and they committed the crime in question. The testimony of PW-1 recorded during trial even remained intact in his cross examination. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the testimony of PW-1, recorded during trial, is extracted as under:- ननम सनकक रनममशवर पसनद पपत सव० शक रतन सससह उम 67 वरर, " ( समवन ननववत) गनहव महदमवन थननन इरनदतनगर, ननवनसक म०नस० 39/46B पमशन कप छ नहक करतन हह जम०पक० नगर मऊ ररड आगरन ममल ननवनसक- सजलन आगरन। शपथ पमवरक बयनन नकयन नकक- हनसजर अदनलत) ममरम मम सहनयक अधयनपक सम समवन ननववत हह खननदननक हम। घटनन नदननसक 07.07.2023 कक हम। ममरम गनहव कन कनलकचरन ममरम पनस सपबह करकब 8-8.30 बजम कम करकब आयन उसनम बतनयन नक ममरम मकनन मम तपमहनरम खनद कम गडड सम पननक जन रहन हम। उससम घर मम सकलन आ रहक हम यन तर उसमम गडड मम नमटक डलवन ह। इस मनमलम कम मपललजमनन ( ह बनबम रनम, नकशन सससह, रनमपकनश पपत नवधनरनम, और इन सभक लरगर नम एक दर सजससम ममरम मकनन मम सकलन आनन रक जनयम। ममनम कनलकचरन सम कहन नक कप छ नमटक हम डलवन दमगम और कप छ नमटक तपम डलवन दमनन सजससम तपमहनरम मकनन कन बचनव हर जनयम। बजम कम करकब नशवरनम पपत नवधनरनम, कलयनन इसक बनत कर लमकर सपबह करकब 9-9.15 सससह पपत रनम पकनश, बनदनम सससह पपत नवधनरनम हररभनन उरर पवन पपत नशवरनम मननसससह व रनम नकशरर पपतगण बनदनम सससह, रनजमनद छरटम पपत नशवरनम, पपत नवधनरनम यम सब ममरम दरवनजम पर आयम, सनथ सनसजश कम तहत अपनम हनथड मम सलयम लनठक, डणडम सररयन सम हमलन कर नदयन। हमलन ममरम ऊपर तथन ममरम भनई रनजवकर सससह, रनजमश पर नकयन सजससम हमनरम चरटम आई। हम लरग डर कम मनरम घर मम घपसम तर यम सभक लरग घर मम घपस आयम, घर मम रनजवकर कक पतनक सतयवतक, रनजवकर कक पपतक पमनम नम बचननम कन पयनस नकयन तर उनमम धककन दमकर सभक लरग नम घमर अलग कर नदयन और रनजवकर जनन बचननम कम कर रनजवकर कर लनठक सररयन व डणडम सम पहनर नकयम। रनजवकर बमहरश हरकर नगर गयन तर नगरम हहए मम भक इन लरगर नम सररयन लनठक डणडम सम पहनर नकयम। हम लरग छत पर बचननम सलयम G.R. हहलसपटल लम गयम। गयम तर हमनरम भक चरटम आई। रनजवकर कर इलनज कम उसकम बनद रनजवकर कर G.R. सलयम उसकन इलनज चलन, असपतनल मम कप छ समय कम हहलसपटल मम डनकटर न हरनम कक वजह सम तकन बजम इलनज हमतप सजलन असपतनल लमकर आयम और उसकन ममनडकल करनयन। वहनह हमनरन पनहचर आदनमयर रनममशवर, बनबमरनम, नकशन ससह, रनजमश कन भक ममनडकल हहआ। रनजवकर सससह कर नरर सजलन असपतनल सम बमहतर इलनज हमतप शकरनम हनलसपटल एम०जक० ररड आगरन लमकर आयम और वहनह उसकन कर उसकक मवतयप हर गई थक।" इलनज हहआ, और इलनज कम ददरनन नदननसक 10.07.2023 सलयम छत पर चढ गयम। यम

10. The aforesaid testimony of PW-1, in categorical terms, demonstrates that the injured witness had stated before the trial court that the revisionist has been involved in the crime in question and specific role has been assigned to him. The trial court, on the basis of the testimony of PW-1 and other material collected by the Investigating Officer, had formed its opinion that it is a fit case for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and thereby had summoned the revisionist to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302/149, 323/149, 324/149 and 336/149 I.P.C.

11. Once in the First Information Report, the revisionist had been named as an accused and had been assigned categorical role in respect of the crime in question and further in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. his role had been affirmed, even further the injured witness PW-1, while giving his testimony before the trial court, had maintained his stand and had named the revisionist and had also assigned his role in the crime in question, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 06.06.2024.

12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, at this stage, has submitted that the revisionist is ready to appear before the trial court pursuant to the impugned order dated 06.06.2024 and wants to apply for bail. He further submits that a direction may be given to the trial court to consider the revisionist's bail application at the earliest, in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

14. It is expected that if the revisionist appears before the trial court pursuant to the impugned order dated 06.06.2024, the trial court shall consider and decide his bail application expeditiously.

15. For a period of twenty days from today, the execution of non bailable warrant issued against the revisionist shall remain in abeyance. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Salim SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad