State of U.P. and Another v. Party

3. Brief facts of the case is that the incident took place on 18.4.2023 and the FIR of which was lodged on the same day on 18.4.2023 against three named accused, namely, Vishal, Ram Kumar and Vikas, which was registered as Case Crime No. 116 of 2023, under Sections 307, 504, 506, 120-B IPC.

4. As per the contents of the first information report, there was a dispute with the brother of the complainant- Omkar Singh with a co-villager Ram Kumar. On 18.4.2023 at 9.30 a.m. when Ompal and his nephew Ravi alias Pankaj were working in their fields, then Vishal son of Ram Kumar and Ram Kumar son of Ranvir came there with the vehicle and hurled abuses and when they were resisted, then they fired with a country made pistol. Ravi and Ompal got injuries on their chest and mouth. 2 CRLR No. 6586 of 2025

5. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted by the police only against the accused, Vishal, under Section 307, 504, 506, 325 IPC and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act. Thereafter, the statement of complainant-PW-1, Omkar Singh has been recorded. After that an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved.

6. It is submitted that during investigation, the statement of injured Ravi Kumar alias Pankaj was recorded and he has specifically alleged that Vishal and Ram Kumar had fired on the injured Ravi Kumar alias Pankaj and the complainant-Omkar Singh. The injured had recorded his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C against Vishal and Ram Kumar. The statement of complainant was also recorded before the trial court and he specifically deposed that Vishal and Ram Kumar hurled abuses and fired on the injured. PW-1 Omkar Singh was also cross-examined and he supported the version.

7. As per medico legal report and supplementary medical report, the injured had suffered fire arms injuries.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist alleges that on 19.4.2023, the police arrested Vishal on the information of a police informer alongwith a country made pistol of 12 bore with an empty cartridge and a live cartridge. There was no public witness of the alleged arrest and recovery.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that without taking any further evidence, the opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 10.10.2024. The alleged injured Pankaj alias Ravi Kumar was examined as PW-2 from 28.5.2025 to 5.8.2025 and then without waiting for any further evidence, the opposite party no.2 again filed an application on 5.8.2025 itself with a prayer to summon the revisionist to face trial. He further submitted that the trial court failed to apply the test of recording its satisfaction in the present case in the way and manner as settled by the Supreme Court. The test that has to be applied is one which is ore than prima-facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to the extent that the evidence, if goes un-rebutted, would lead to conviction. Since no such satisfaction has been recorded by the trial court in the impugned order, 3 CRLR No. 6586 of 2025 hence same is rendered illegal and vitiated in the eyes of law.

10. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has submitted that there is sufficient material against the revisionist. He is a named accused in the FIR and there is specific statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. against him. The complainant-PW-1 Omkar Singh in his statement had specifically mentioned the role of the revisionist in the said offence. The injured Pankaj alias Ravi Kumar has specifically deposed in his examination that Vishal and Ram Kumar had fired with country made pistol on them.

11. Learned trial court had relied upon all the evidences produced before him by way of case diary and the evidences during investigation. Learned trial court has duly examined the statement of PW-1 Omkar, the complainant as well as the injured, Ravi Kumar alias Pankaj (PW-2). They have specifically given direct evidence against the revisionist. Learned trial court has specifically relied upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Akhilesh Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2025 SCC Online and Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Constitution Bench), wherein it has been held as under: "12. Section 319 Cr.P.C. springs out of the doctrine judex demnature cum noncens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted) and this doctrine must be used as a beacon light while explaining the ambit and the spirit underlying the enactment of Section 319 Cr.P.C.

13. It is the duty of the court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial."

12. In Hardeep Singh (supra), the Supreme Court further held that the Court only has to see at the stage of section 319, where a prima facie case is made out although the degree of satisfaction has to be much higher. Paragraph no. 95 of the said judgement reads as under: "95. At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much 4 CRLR No. 6586 of 2025 stricter. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Vikas V. State of Rajasthjan, held that on the objective satisfaction of the court a person may be "arrested" or "summoned" as the circumstances of the case may require, if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the already arraigned accused persons."

13. From the record, it is evident that the offence is of serious nature and further there is sufficient available evidence before the trial court to summon the accused-revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court mentioned herein above.

14. In view thereof, there is neither illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. Therefore, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed. October 28, 2025 sfa/ (Abdul Shahid,J.)

3. Brief facts of the case is that the incident took place on 18.4.2023 and the FIR of which was lodged on the same day on 18.4.2023 against three named accused, namely, Vishal, Ram Kumar and Vikas, which was registered as Case Crime No. 116 of 2023, under Sections 307, 504, 506, 120-B IPC.

4. As per the contents of the first information report, there was a dispute with the brother of the complainant- Omkar Singh with a co-villager Ram Kumar. On 18.4.2023 at 9.30 a.m. when Ompal and his nephew Ravi alias Pankaj were working in their fields, then Vishal son of Ram Kumar and Ram Kumar son of Ranvir came there with the vehicle and hurled abuses and when they were resisted, then they fired with a country made pistol. Ravi and Ompal got injuries on their chest and mouth. 2 CRLR No. 6586 of 2025

5. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted by the police only against the accused, Vishal, under Section 307, 504, 506, 325 IPC and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act. Thereafter, the statement of complainant-PW-1, Omkar Singh has been recorded. After that an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved.

6. It is submitted that during investigation, the statement of injured Ravi Kumar alias Pankaj was recorded and he has specifically alleged that Vishal and Ram Kumar had fired on the injured Ravi Kumar alias Pankaj and the complainant-Omkar Singh. The injured had recorded his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C against Vishal and Ram Kumar. The statement of complainant was also recorded before the trial court and he specifically deposed that Vishal and Ram Kumar hurled abuses and fired on the injured. PW-1 Omkar Singh was also cross-examined and he supported the version.

7. As per medico legal report and supplementary medical report, the injured had suffered fire arms injuries.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist alleges that on 19.4.2023, the police arrested Vishal on the information of a police informer alongwith a country made pistol of 12 bore with an empty cartridge and a live cartridge. There was no public witness of the alleged arrest and recovery.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that without taking any further evidence, the opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 10.10.2024. The alleged injured Pankaj alias Ravi Kumar was examined as PW-2 from 28.5.2025 to 5.8.2025 and then without waiting for any further evidence, the opposite party no.2 again filed an application on 5.8.2025 itself with a prayer to summon the revisionist to face trial. He further submitted that the trial court failed to apply the test of recording its satisfaction in the present case in the way and manner as settled by the Supreme Court. The test that has to be applied is one which is ore than prima-facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to the extent that the evidence, if goes un-rebutted, would lead to conviction. Since no such satisfaction has been recorded by the trial court in the impugned order, 3 CRLR No. 6586 of 2025 hence same is rendered illegal and vitiated in the eyes of law.

10. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has submitted that there is sufficient material against the revisionist. He is a named accused in the FIR and there is specific statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. against him. The complainant-PW-1 Omkar Singh in his statement had specifically mentioned the role of the revisionist in the said offence. The injured Pankaj alias Ravi Kumar has specifically deposed in his examination that Vishal and Ram Kumar had fired with country made pistol on them.

11. Learned trial court had relied upon all the evidences produced before him by way of case diary and the evidences during investigation. Learned trial court has duly examined the statement of PW-1 Omkar, the complainant as well as the injured, Ravi Kumar alias Pankaj (PW-2). They have specifically given direct evidence against the revisionist. Learned trial court has specifically relied upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Akhilesh Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2025 SCC Online and Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Constitution Bench), wherein it has been held as under: "12. Section 319 Cr.P.C. springs out of the doctrine judex demnature cum noncens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted) and this doctrine must be used as a beacon light while explaining the ambit and the spirit underlying the enactment of Section 319 Cr.P.C.

13. It is the duty of the court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial."

12. In Hardeep Singh (supra), the Supreme Court further held that the Court only has to see at the stage of section 319, where a prima facie case is made out although the degree of satisfaction has to be much higher. Paragraph no. 95 of the said judgement reads as under: "95. At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much 4 CRLR No. 6586 of 2025 stricter. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Vikas V. State of Rajasthjan, held that on the objective satisfaction of the court a person may be "arrested" or "summoned" as the circumstances of the case may require, if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the already arraigned accused persons."

13. From the record, it is evident that the offence is of serious nature and further there is sufficient available evidence before the trial court to summon the accused-revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court mentioned herein above.

14. In view thereof, there is neither illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. Therefore, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed. October 28, 2025 sfa/ (Abdul Shahid,J.)