High Court · 2025

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

3. Perused the record.

4. On due consideration to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned. Order on Revision

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State.

2. Admit.

3. Summon trial court record.

4.Vakalatnama filed by Shri Neeraj Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 (complainant) is taken on record.

5. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 by which, the revisionist has been summoned to face trial under Section 319 CrPC.

6. Relevant part of the order dated 30.09.2024 is reproduced as under: "6. Careful perusal of the deposition of P.W.1 Anshuman Singh reveals that he is the brother of the deceased and informant in this case. He deposed that deceased Radha was his younger sister. On 28.11.2019, she was married with Ram Lakhan and gave sufficient amount of dowry but Radha's husband Ram Lakhan, father-in-law Dinesh and mother-in-law Kalpana and sister-in-law Ritu Singh were not satisfied with the given dowry. After the marriage, he gave a motorcycle, 1.50 Lac Rs., a Voltas A.C., despite that they were not satisfied with the dowry and were demanding Rs. 1 lac and a Bolero Car for additional dowry, due to which they were harassing physically and mentally to Radha. Whenever Radha visited to her parental house, she used to inform about the harassment for the dowry. But they tried to convenience her that situation will be alright due to passing of time.

7. On 27.07.2023, Ram Lakhan informed that Radha has committed suicide. Upon receiving information when he along with family members reached her sister-in-law's house, he found Radha sitting on bed in dead condition on a cot with towel tied around her neck hanging from the fan. There were various injuries on her body and blood was oozing out from her nose. P.W.2 father of the deceased has supported and corroborated the facts that after six months of the marriage of Radha, on demand of accused Ram Lakhan Singh, mother-in- law Kalpana Singh and sister-in-law Ritu, a Splendor motorcyle and Rs. 1.5 Lac was given to them and again on demand one A.C. was given. Despite that they were not happy and were harassing deceased mentally and physically for demand of additional dowry of Rs. 1 Lac and Bolero Car.

8. P.W.3 Astha Singh aged about 11 years, is a child witness and the niece of the deceased/victim Radha. The said witness in her examination-in-chief has stated that his aunt's name was Radha Singh. Twenty days before her aunt's death, she went to Tomran village with her aunt to her in-law's house. She stayed at her aunt's matrimonial house for 20 days. On 26.07.2023, his uncle (Fufa), uncle's father, his mother and his sister-in-law Nanad) and uncle's cousin started harassing her aunt (Bua) for bringing Bolero Care. The aforesaid persons started fight, then started assaulting her aunt. She watching the incident and started weaping. Then aunt's sister-in-law ga 74) took her to another room and kept her in that room untill morning. In the morning when she woke up, she came out of the room and" saw that in Varanda her aunt was tied with Gamchha with a fan. Her legs were on the cot. She stayed there for twenty days and the in-laws of her aunt continuously harassed for Bolero Car. The verbatim of the statement of P.W.3, is as below- “ मम 20 फफ फड कख ददन ततमरन खखडड रहह थह। ददनडनक 26.07.2023 दपतड व उनकक मडतड, उनकक बहन ( ममतकड कक ननद), कक रडत मखरख फफ फड, व फफ फड कख ललए नहह कहह चडचड कख लडकख नख कहड थड दक बतलखरत गडडह अपनख दपतड जह सख मनगवडओ। तत बबआ नख कहड थड दक मम अपनख दपतड सख बतलखरत गडडह दखनख कख हगह। इन उपरतक लतगग नख मखरह बबआ कख सडथ पहलख कहडसबनह कक थह और दफर मडरपहट कक थह। मखरख रतनख पर मखरह बबआ कक ननद मबझख अलग करमख मम लखकर गई और दरवडजड बडहर सख बनद कर ललयड थड। मम रडतभर रततह रहह; बबआ कक भह आवडज बचडओ- बचडओ कक आवडज मबझख सबनडई पड रहह थह। सबबह मम जब उठह तत दरवडजड खबलड थड, मम कमरख सख बडहर दनकलकर भडई तत दखखड घर कख अनदर पहछख बरडमदख मम गमछख सख मखरह बबआ छत कख छलख सख लटकक हहई तह। नहचख चडरपडई पर उनकख पपर रखख हहए थख।"

9. A careful perusal of the deposition of the child witness, it is evident that the name of sister-in-law Ritu was mentioned by the witness. At the time of incident sister-in-law Ritu Singh was present on spot and she took P.W.3 child witness and closed her in a room. In case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2014(3) SCC 92, the Hon'ble Court has held that - "Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an exraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner." We are thus of the view that although only a prima facie case has to be established from the evidence placed before the court, it is not necessary to held a trial on the basis of cross examination. It requires very strong evidence that possibility of his involvement is ver near. The trial in which this is done and applied is one which is more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge that those is a lack of satisfaction to this extent that the evidence, if disproceed would lead to conviction. It the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

10. In the case of Shankar Vs. The state of U.P. and ors. 2024 (SC) 345, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to summon a person as an additional accused involving power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the degree of satisfaction is much stricter. The evidence should be such that it should lead to conviction of the accused if it is unrebutled.

11. Further on examiming the material evidence placed on record, it transpires that the deposition made by the prosecution witness P.W.1 as stated in para 1 of page 1 that during marriage Radha's (deceased) husband Ram Lakhan, her father- in-law Dinesh and mother-in-law Kalpana and her sister-in- law Reetu were not satisfied with the dowry. Her in-law's harassed physicaly and mentally for dowry. The said witness has taken the name of Reetu Singh for the alleged offence. P.W.2 namely Nagendra Kumar has also taken the name of Reetu Singh that her in law's has harassed mentally and physically for demanding dowry. Moresoever, P.W.1 and P.W.2 tried to satisfy demand of dowry by giving 1.5 lac Rs., motorcycle and T.V. but they were demanding one lac and Bolero car. As from careful examining the testimony of child witness namely Astha Singh who has expressly taken the name of Reetu Singh in the deposition that in Para 3 Page No.4, a dispute happened between her uncle (deceased husband) and her aunt. Further stated in para 5 page 4 that the said witness kept watching the fight for ten minutes and after that her aunt's sister Reetu Singh (sister-in-law) took her to another room untill morning.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) held that "the decision on whether a child witness had sufficient intelligence rests primarily with the trial judge, who can observe the child's demenor and conduct a preliminary examination to access the child's capacity, intelligence and understanding of the obligation to speak the truth."

13. Further, a perusal of the deposition of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 (child witness) it transpires that it is in line and consistent with each other, on the fact that the accused namely Reetu Singh was involved in the alleged crime. Further when the testimony are looked in a holistic manner, it would be clear that high degree of satisfaction this is required for exercising power under section 319 Cr.P.C. is met in the present cases. Therefore, there is a sufficient ground to summon Reetu Singh. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petition of the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed. Reetu Singh is liable to be summoned under Section 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and section 4 of D.P. Act. Order Application 19Ka is allowed. Reetu Singh is summoned to face the trial U/s 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and section 4of D.P. Act. O/c is directed to issue summon to Reetu Singh. File be put up on 15-10-24 for appearance."

7. A perusal of impugned order dated 30.09.2024 reveals that PW-1 and 2 have made allegation of demand of dowry upon the revisionist and PW-3 who is a child witness has stated before the trial court alleging the complexity of the revisionist.

8. Relevant part of the statement of PW-3 is reproduced as under: ममतकड कक ननद), दपतड व उनकक मडतड, ददन ततमरन खखडड रहह थह। ददनडनक 26.07.2023 कक रडत मखरख फफ फड, " मम 20 उनकक बहन ( फफ फड कख व फफ फड कख चडचड कख लडकख नख कहड थड दक बतलखरत गडडह अपनख दपतड जह सख मनगवडओ। तत बबआ नख कहड थड दक मम अपनख दपतड सख बतलखरत गडडह दखनख कख हगह। इन उपरतक लतगग नख मखरह बबआ कख सडथ पहलख कहडसबनह कक थह और दफर मडरपहट कक थह। मखरख रतनख पर मखरह बबआ कक ननद मबझख अलग करमख मम लखकर गई और दरवडजड बडहर सख बनद कर ललयड थड। मम रडतभर रततह रहह; बबआ कक भह आवडज बचडओ- बचडओ कक आवडज मबझख सबनडई पड रहह थह। सबबह मम जब उठह तत दरवडजड खबलड थड, मम कमरख सख बडहर दनकलकर भडई तत दखखड घर कख अनदर पहछख बरडमदख मम गमछख सख मखरह बबआ छत कख छलख सख लटकक हहई तह। नहचख चडरपडई पर उनकख पपर रखख हहए थख।" ललए नहह कहह

9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that while considering these three statements of the PW-1, 2 and 3 which collectively point towards the complexity of the revisionist, it is evident that the degree of satisfaction required to summon the accused under Section 319 CrPC is present in this case. After considering all these aspects and recording the satisfaction, learned trial court has passed the impugned order summoning the revisionist.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that victim was subjected to cruelty and there are several ante-mortem injuries found on her bod. Complexity of the victim is evident from the perusal of statements of PW-1, 2 and 3 and there is more than satisfactory material available on record to summon the revisionist. Thus, there is no illegality in the order impugned.

11. Perused the record.

12. The perusal of the record reveals that trial court while considering the statement of PW-1, 2 and 3 in detail which point out the complexity of the revisionist in commission of crime has recorded higher degree of satisfaction which is required for summoning the accused under Section 319 of CrPC. Thus, there appears to be no illegality in the impugned order dated 30.09.2024.

13. In view of the above, the revision being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 5.2.2025/V. Sinha VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

3. Perused the record.

4. On due consideration to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned. Order on Revision

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State.

2. Admit.

3. Summon trial court record.

4.Vakalatnama filed by Shri Neeraj Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 (complainant) is taken on record.

5. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 by which, the revisionist has been summoned to face trial under Section 319 CrPC.

6. Relevant part of the order dated 30.09.2024 is reproduced as under: "6. Careful perusal of the deposition of P.W.1 Anshuman Singh reveals that he is the brother of the deceased and informant in this case. He deposed that deceased Radha was his younger sister. On 28.11.2019, she was married with Ram Lakhan and gave sufficient amount of dowry but Radha's husband Ram Lakhan, father-in-law Dinesh and mother-in-law Kalpana and sister-in-law Ritu Singh were not satisfied with the given dowry. After the marriage, he gave a motorcycle, 1.50 Lac Rs., a Voltas A.C., despite that they were not satisfied with the dowry and were demanding Rs. 1 lac and a Bolero Car for additional dowry, due to which they were harassing physically and mentally to Radha. Whenever Radha visited to her parental house, she used to inform about the harassment for the dowry. But they tried to convenience her that situation will be alright due to passing of time.

7. On 27.07.2023, Ram Lakhan informed that Radha has committed suicide. Upon receiving information when he along with family members reached her sister-in-law's house, he found Radha sitting on bed in dead condition on a cot with towel tied around her neck hanging from the fan. There were various injuries on her body and blood was oozing out from her nose. P.W.2 father of the deceased has supported and corroborated the facts that after six months of the marriage of Radha, on demand of accused Ram Lakhan Singh, mother-in- law Kalpana Singh and sister-in-law Ritu, a Splendor motorcyle and Rs. 1.5 Lac was given to them and again on demand one A.C. was given. Despite that they were not happy and were harassing deceased mentally and physically for demand of additional dowry of Rs. 1 Lac and Bolero Car.

8. P.W.3 Astha Singh aged about 11 years, is a child witness and the niece of the deceased/victim Radha. The said witness in her examination-in-chief has stated that his aunt's name was Radha Singh. Twenty days before her aunt's death, she went to Tomran village with her aunt to her in-law's house. She stayed at her aunt's matrimonial house for 20 days. On 26.07.2023, his uncle (Fufa), uncle's father, his mother and his sister-in-law Nanad) and uncle's cousin started harassing her aunt (Bua) for bringing Bolero Care. The aforesaid persons started fight, then started assaulting her aunt. She watching the incident and started weaping. Then aunt's sister-in-law ga 74) took her to another room and kept her in that room untill morning. In the morning when she woke up, she came out of the room and" saw that in Varanda her aunt was tied with Gamchha with a fan. Her legs were on the cot. She stayed there for twenty days and the in-laws of her aunt continuously harassed for Bolero Car. The verbatim of the statement of P.W.3, is as below- “ मम 20 फफ फड कख ददन ततमरन खखडड रहह थह। ददनडनक 26.07.2023 दपतड व उनकक मडतड, उनकक बहन ( ममतकड कक ननद), कक रडत मखरख फफ फड, व फफ फड कख ललए नहह कहह चडचड कख लडकख नख कहड थड दक बतलखरत गडडह अपनख दपतड जह सख मनगवडओ। तत बबआ नख कहड थड दक मम अपनख दपतड सख बतलखरत गडडह दखनख कख हगह। इन उपरतक लतगग नख मखरह बबआ कख सडथ पहलख कहडसबनह कक थह और दफर मडरपहट कक थह। मखरख रतनख पर मखरह बबआ कक ननद मबझख अलग करमख मम लखकर गई और दरवडजड बडहर सख बनद कर ललयड थड। मम रडतभर रततह रहह; बबआ कक भह आवडज बचडओ- बचडओ कक आवडज मबझख सबनडई पड रहह थह। सबबह मम जब उठह तत दरवडजड खबलड थड, मम कमरख सख बडहर दनकलकर भडई तत दखखड घर कख अनदर पहछख बरडमदख मम गमछख सख मखरह बबआ छत कख छलख सख लटकक हहई तह। नहचख चडरपडई पर उनकख पपर रखख हहए थख।"

9. A careful perusal of the deposition of the child witness, it is evident that the name of sister-in-law Ritu was mentioned by the witness. At the time of incident sister-in-law Ritu Singh was present on spot and she took P.W.3 child witness and closed her in a room. In case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2014(3) SCC 92, the Hon'ble Court has held that - "Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an exraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner." We are thus of the view that although only a prima facie case has to be established from the evidence placed before the court, it is not necessary to held a trial on the basis of cross examination. It requires very strong evidence that possibility of his involvement is ver near. The trial in which this is done and applied is one which is more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge that those is a lack of satisfaction to this extent that the evidence, if disproceed would lead to conviction. It the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

10. In the case of Shankar Vs. The state of U.P. and ors. 2024 (SC) 345, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to summon a person as an additional accused involving power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the degree of satisfaction is much stricter. The evidence should be such that it should lead to conviction of the accused if it is unrebutled.

11. Further on examiming the material evidence placed on record, it transpires that the deposition made by the prosecution witness P.W.1 as stated in para 1 of page 1 that during marriage Radha's (deceased) husband Ram Lakhan, her father- in-law Dinesh and mother-in-law Kalpana and her sister-in- law Reetu were not satisfied with the dowry. Her in-law's harassed physicaly and mentally for dowry. The said witness has taken the name of Reetu Singh for the alleged offence. P.W.2 namely Nagendra Kumar has also taken the name of Reetu Singh that her in law's has harassed mentally and physically for demanding dowry. Moresoever, P.W.1 and P.W.2 tried to satisfy demand of dowry by giving 1.5 lac Rs., motorcycle and T.V. but they were demanding one lac and Bolero car. As from careful examining the testimony of child witness namely Astha Singh who has expressly taken the name of Reetu Singh in the deposition that in Para 3 Page No.4, a dispute happened between her uncle (deceased husband) and her aunt. Further stated in para 5 page 4 that the said witness kept watching the fight for ten minutes and after that her aunt's sister Reetu Singh (sister-in-law) took her to another room untill morning.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) held that "the decision on whether a child witness had sufficient intelligence rests primarily with the trial judge, who can observe the child's demenor and conduct a preliminary examination to access the child's capacity, intelligence and understanding of the obligation to speak the truth."

13. Further, a perusal of the deposition of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 (child witness) it transpires that it is in line and consistent with each other, on the fact that the accused namely Reetu Singh was involved in the alleged crime. Further when the testimony are looked in a holistic manner, it would be clear that high degree of satisfaction this is required for exercising power under section 319 Cr.P.C. is met in the present cases. Therefore, there is a sufficient ground to summon Reetu Singh. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petition of the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed. Reetu Singh is liable to be summoned under Section 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and section 4 of D.P. Act. Order Application 19Ka is allowed. Reetu Singh is summoned to face the trial U/s 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and section 4of D.P. Act. O/c is directed to issue summon to Reetu Singh. File be put up on 15-10-24 for appearance."

7. A perusal of impugned order dated 30.09.2024 reveals that PW-1 and 2 have made allegation of demand of dowry upon the revisionist and PW-3 who is a child witness has stated before the trial court alleging the complexity of the revisionist.

8. Relevant part of the statement of PW-3 is reproduced as under: ममतकड कक ननद), दपतड व उनकक मडतड, ददन ततमरन खखडड रहह थह। ददनडनक 26.07.2023 कक रडत मखरख फफ फड, " मम 20 उनकक बहन ( फफ फड कख व फफ फड कख चडचड कख लडकख नख कहड थड दक बतलखरत गडडह अपनख दपतड जह सख मनगवडओ। तत बबआ नख कहड थड दक मम अपनख दपतड सख बतलखरत गडडह दखनख कख हगह। इन उपरतक लतगग नख मखरह बबआ कख सडथ पहलख कहडसबनह कक थह और दफर मडरपहट कक थह। मखरख रतनख पर मखरह बबआ कक ननद मबझख अलग करमख मम लखकर गई और दरवडजड बडहर सख बनद कर ललयड थड। मम रडतभर रततह रहह; बबआ कक भह आवडज बचडओ- बचडओ कक आवडज मबझख सबनडई पड रहह थह। सबबह मम जब उठह तत दरवडजड खबलड थड, मम कमरख सख बडहर दनकलकर भडई तत दखखड घर कख अनदर पहछख बरडमदख मम गमछख सख मखरह बबआ छत कख छलख सख लटकक हहई तह। नहचख चडरपडई पर उनकख पपर रखख हहए थख।" ललए नहह कहह

9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that while considering these three statements of the PW-1, 2 and 3 which collectively point towards the complexity of the revisionist, it is evident that the degree of satisfaction required to summon the accused under Section 319 CrPC is present in this case. After considering all these aspects and recording the satisfaction, learned trial court has passed the impugned order summoning the revisionist.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that victim was subjected to cruelty and there are several ante-mortem injuries found on her bod. Complexity of the victim is evident from the perusal of statements of PW-1, 2 and 3 and there is more than satisfactory material available on record to summon the revisionist. Thus, there is no illegality in the order impugned.

11. Perused the record.

12. The perusal of the record reveals that trial court while considering the statement of PW-1, 2 and 3 in detail which point out the complexity of the revisionist in commission of crime has recorded higher degree of satisfaction which is required for summoning the accused under Section 319 of CrPC. Thus, there appears to be no illegality in the impugned order dated 30.09.2024.

13. In view of the above, the revision being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 5.2.2025/V. Sinha VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench