High Court · 2025

Heard Shri Prachish Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Ajit Singh Gaherawal, State Law Officer as well Mrs. Suniti Sachan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the summoning of the revisionists is based solely on the statements of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 recorded before the trial court. He further contends that PW-3, Sandeep, has provided an eyewitness account alleging the involvement of the revisionists. However, it is argued that neither during the lodging of the FIR nor in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the complicity of the revisionists was alleged by these three witnesses. Even when the complainant approached higher authorities, including the Chief Minister and the Director General of Police, there was no claim that anyone had seen the revisionists committing the murder of the deceased. It is submitted that this new story has been developed for the first time during the trial, after a lapse of 3-4 years alleging the involvement of the revisionist in committing the crime. It is further further submitted that the statements of PW-1, PW- 2, and PW-3 are not corroborated by any other material collected during investigation. It is also submitted that the investigating officer has collected enough evidence, coupled with the conduct of the complainant who gave applications to various authorities against the prosecution, however, at no point of time, it was the case of the prosecution that PW-3 was an eyewitness to the crime committed by the revisionists. This is a subsequent development only to harass the revisionists. Learned counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance on the judgment of Brijendra Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706. Emphasis is on para 15 of the judgment. Per contra, learned AGA and counsel for respondent no. 2 oppose these submissions, arguing that at the stage of statement before the court, if it is found that persons other than the charge-sheeted accused have committed the crime, they can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.Learned AGA has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 18 SCC 321. Emphasis is on para 13 of the judgment. He has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore @ Anr Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr, Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 17781 of 2024. Emphasis is on para 21. Perused the record. In the case of Brijendra Singh (supra) RTI information obtained by the appellant showing the documentary evidence in support of his innocence, thus, on the basis of the said documents and the statements of various persons recorded during investigation, it was observed by the Apex Court that the trial court was at least duty bound to look into the plethora of evidence collected by the I.O. which suggested otherwise and the trial court was required to record satisfaction before forming a prima facie opinion. Unlike that case, the present case in hand lack such circumstances. Here, the statements of three prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 clearly allege complicity of the revisionists. PW-3 specifically stated that in the torchlight, he saw Dan Bahadur and Akhilesh Pratap Singh catching hold of the deceased and Beer Bahadur shot him. The Apex Court in the case of Manjeet Singh (supra) while laying down the ratio as regards to the scope and ambit of power of Section 319 Cr.P.C in paragraph 15.11 of the judgment has held that "the word “evidence” in Section 319 CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents". The said paragraph 15.11 is as under:- "15.11 The word “evidence” in Section 319 CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents;" Likewise in the case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore (supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not dependent on the submission of the charge sheet by the police against the person concerned. It has also been held that it would not be appropriate for the trial court to reject the application for addition of new accused by considering records of the investigating officer when the evidence is worthy of credence. The relevant paragraph 21 of the judgment is extracted below:- "21. The principles of law as regards Section 319 of the CrPC may be summarised as under: a. On a careful reading of Section 319 of the CrPC as well as the aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the F.I.R. as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial. b. The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of 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. c. The power of the court under Section 319 of the CrPC is not controlled or governed by naming or not naming of the person concerned in the FIR. Nor the same is dependent upon submission of the chargesheet by the police against the person concerned. As regards the contention that the phrase 'any person not being the accused' occurred in Section 319 excludes from its operation an accused who has been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code and has been shown in column No. 2 of the charge sheet, the contention has merely to be stated to be rejected. The said expression clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like Section 319(1) clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the Criminal Court are included in the said expression. d. It would not be proper for the trial court to reject the application for addition of new accused by considering records of the Investigating Officer. When the evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance then the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer hardly matters. If satisfaction of Investigating Officer is to be treated as determinative then the purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated." In view of the above, so also the impugned order dated 25.10.2024, from the statements of three prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, prima facie, complicity of the revisionists is evident. The trial court has correctly recorded its satisfaction based on the evidence, which is more than sufficient for framing charges. Hence, no illegality is found in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist may be permitted to surrender before the learned Sessions Court and considering the fact that they did not have any criminal history and keeping them in custody will not serve any purpose. Learned counsel for the revisionist undertakes on behalf of the revisionist that they will cooperate in the trial. In view of the above, the revisionists Dan Bahadur Singh, Beer Bahadur Singh and Akhilesh Pratap Singh are directed to be released on bail after filing of adequate sureties and bonds to the satisfaction of learned Court below. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 R.C. RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Shri Prachish Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Ajit Singh Gaherawal, State Law Officer as well Mrs. Suniti Sachan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the summoning of the revisionists is based solely on the statements of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 recorded before the trial court. He further contends that PW-3, Sandeep, has provided an eyewitness account alleging the involvement of the revisionists. However, it is argued that neither during the lodging of the FIR nor in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the complicity of the revisionists was alleged by these three witnesses. Even when the complainant approached higher authorities, including the Chief Minister and the Director General of Police, there was no claim that anyone had seen the revisionists committing the murder of the deceased. It is submitted that this new story has been developed for the first time during the trial, after a lapse of 3-4 years alleging the involvement of the revisionist in committing the crime. It is further further submitted that the statements of PW-1, PW- 2, and PW-3 are not corroborated by any other material collected during investigation. It is also submitted that the investigating officer has collected enough evidence, coupled with the conduct of the complainant who gave applications to various authorities against the prosecution, however, at no point of time, it was the case of the prosecution that PW-3 was an eyewitness to the crime committed by the revisionists. This is a subsequent development only to harass the revisionists. Learned counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance on the judgment of Brijendra Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706. Emphasis is on para 15 of the judgment. Per contra, learned AGA and counsel for respondent no. 2 oppose these submissions, arguing that at the stage of statement before the court, if it is found that persons other than the charge-sheeted accused have committed the crime, they can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.Learned AGA has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 18 SCC 321. Emphasis is on para 13 of the judgment. He has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore @ Anr Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr, Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 17781 of 2024. Emphasis is on para 21. Perused the record. In the case of Brijendra Singh (supra) RTI information obtained by the appellant showing the documentary evidence in support of his innocence, thus, on the basis of the said documents and the statements of various persons recorded during investigation, it was observed by the Apex Court that the trial court was at least duty bound to look into the plethora of evidence collected by the I.O. which suggested otherwise and the trial court was required to record satisfaction before forming a prima facie opinion. Unlike that case, the present case in hand lack such circumstances. Here, the statements of three prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 clearly allege complicity of the revisionists. PW-3 specifically stated that in the torchlight, he saw Dan Bahadur and Akhilesh Pratap Singh catching hold of the deceased and Beer Bahadur shot him. The Apex Court in the case of Manjeet Singh (supra) while laying down the ratio as regards to the scope and ambit of power of Section 319 Cr.P.C in paragraph 15.11 of the judgment has held that "the word “evidence” in Section 319 CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents". The said paragraph 15.11 is as under:- "15.11 The word “evidence” in Section 319 CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents;" Likewise in the case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore (supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not dependent on the submission of the charge sheet by the police against the person concerned. It has also been held that it would not be appropriate for the trial court to reject the application for addition of new accused by considering records of the investigating officer when the evidence is worthy of credence. The relevant paragraph 21 of the judgment is extracted below:- "21. The principles of law as regards Section 319 of the CrPC may be summarised as under: a. On a careful reading of Section 319 of the CrPC as well as the aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the F.I.R. as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial. b. The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of 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. c. The power of the court under Section 319 of the CrPC is not controlled or governed by naming or not naming of the person concerned in the FIR. Nor the same is dependent upon submission of the chargesheet by the police against the person concerned. As regards the contention that the phrase 'any person not being the accused' occurred in Section 319 excludes from its operation an accused who has been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code and has been shown in column No. 2 of the charge sheet, the contention has merely to be stated to be rejected. The said expression clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like Section 319(1) clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the Criminal Court are included in the said expression. d. It would not be proper for the trial court to reject the application for addition of new accused by considering records of the Investigating Officer. When the evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance then the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer hardly matters. If satisfaction of Investigating Officer is to be treated as determinative then the purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated." In view of the above, so also the impugned order dated 25.10.2024, from the statements of three prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, prima facie, complicity of the revisionists is evident. The trial court has correctly recorded its satisfaction based on the evidence, which is more than sufficient for framing charges. Hence, no illegality is found in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist may be permitted to surrender before the learned Sessions Court and considering the fact that they did not have any criminal history and keeping them in custody will not serve any purpose. Learned counsel for the revisionist undertakes on behalf of the revisionist that they will cooperate in the trial. In view of the above, the revisionists Dan Bahadur Singh, Beer Bahadur Singh and Akhilesh Pratap Singh are directed to be released on bail after filing of adequate sureties and bonds to the satisfaction of learned Court below. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 R.C. RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench