Allahabad High Court
Abhishek Rai And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188475
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6582 of 2025
Abhishek Rai And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Aishwarya Rai, Arvind Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Awadhesh Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/first informant and the learned AGA for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.9.2025, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, District Azamgarh in Case No. 6094 of 2024 (State Vs. Anirudh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 70 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bilariyaganj, District Azamgarh, whereby the application for alteration of charge has been rejected.
3. Brief facts of the case is that the incident took place on 18.5.2018 and the FIR was lodged on same day i.e. on 18.5.2018 against the four named accused persons, namely, Anirudh Rai, Abhishek Rai, Subhash Rai and Sandeep Rai, which was registered as Case Crime No.070 of 2018, under Sections 392, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013.
4. From the contents of the first information report, it is evident that the complainant-Atul Kumar Rai is having dispute amongst family members of Anirudh Rai. A delegation under the Presidentship of Advocate Association visited the place of incident for settlement on 18.5.2018 around 4.30 pm. The complainant-Atul Kumar Rai and his brother Ajay Rai were showing place in dispute to the said delegation. At that time, the accused Anirudh Rai, Abhishek Rai, Subhash and Sandeep Rai gave hurling abuses to the complainant-Atul Kumar Rai and his brother Ajay Rai and started beating with legs, fists and Danda. The accused Subhash Rai and Anirudh Rai pull down the complainant and Abhishek and Sandeep tried to press the neck of Ajay Rai. They threatened that they should be killed today. Then members of the delegation and driver and so many other persons came and then the accused persons left and intimidated to the complainant and his brother. At the time of leaving the spot, they have snatched watch and gold chain from the neck of brother of the complainant.
5. There is no specific identification of any watch or gold chain. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC against all the four accused persons. The charges were framed and statement of PW-1 Atul Rai was recorded on 8.8.2023 and completed on 8.10.2024. The statement of PW-2 Ajay Kumar Rai was completed on 25.10.2024. The statement of Ashish Kuma Rai, PW-3 was completed on 7.7.2025. The statement of PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 were also recorded. The statement of PW-7 was completed on 18.4.2025.
6. An application for amendment of charge was filed on 22.4.2025 and it is prayed that the accused persons be also charged under Section 394 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013.
7. The trial court passed the impugned order that there is sufficient material for framing charges under Section 394 IPC against the revisionist, Abhishek Rai and Sandeep Rai.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that from bare perusal of paragraph no. 14 of the impugned order dated 20.9.2025, a contrary finding has been given by the learned trial court. The learned trial court has categorically given a finding that there is no evidence available on record to show that the accused were came at the spot with an intention to commit robbery, but on other hand in the same paragraph of the impugned order, learned trial court has made charge only against the revisionist under Section 394 IPC without assigning any reason. Neither alleged golden chain nor alleged watch of PW-2 has been recovered by the Investigating Officer nor any cogent and clinching material was submitted by the informant, which proves that the revisionist may be convicted under Section 394 IPC. There is no material was available at all available on record which prove commission of robbery by the revisionists. Learned trial court in paragraph no. 10 of the impugned order itself noted that eye witness did not support the statements of snatching the chain and watch, despite this findings, the trial court proceeded to frame charge under Section 394 IPC relying only on the statements of interested witnesses. There is no eye independent local witnesses to support the complainants serious allegations. The trial of revisionists under Section 394 IPC is baseless, unfounded and unsupported by any incriminating material. In absence of recovery of any article (incriminating material) under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the trial of the offence under Section 394 IPC is futile exercise and wastage of time of the court. There is independent witness Swaminath-PW-13, who was never examined, in front of whom residence the alleged incident was happened. From bare perusal of the FIR dated 18.5.2018, the offence of robbery is not made out, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Learned AGA and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2/first informant have opposed the revision and submitted that the impugned order has been passed as per law and no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the trial court in passing the said order.
10. From the record, it is evident that the alleged incident took place on 18.5.2018 more than seven years ago and the FIR was lodged on the same day against the four named accused persons. There is allegation of hurling abuses and beating with legs, fists and danda on all the accused persons and on the intervention of members of delegation, driver of the vehicle and so many several other persons, the life of the complainant and his brother were saved and thereafter the accused persons went away by giving intimidation. It is also alleged that they had snatched watch and golden chain from the neck. There is no specific allegation against any of the accused person. It appears to be unnatural when life of the complainant and his brother were saved on intervention of members of delegation, driver and so many several persons, the accused may commit alleged robbery. After detailed investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 24.8.2018 against all the accused persons only under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC. Thereafter, PW-1 to PW-7 have been examined and the incident is more than seven years old. At that time, the application was filed for amendment of charge.
11. Learned trial court has himself given a contradictory and perverse finding in paragraph 14 of the impugned order that there is no specific allegation that which accused had committed crime under Section 394 IPC. He had also gave a finding that there is no per-conceive notion that the accused persons came at the place of incident with an intention to commit robbery at the place of incident. No reasonable cause is shown that what is the specific basis and specific role for framing charge only against two accused persons under Section 394 IPC that too after seven years of the incident and after completion of seven prosecution witnesses. Neither any alleged material was recovered. There is no specific detail of watch and golden chain was there. The complainant and the accused persons are related with lineage of same family. They are neither professional criminals nor any criminal record has been mentioned. The dispute is amongst the same family lineage members.
12. In view thereof, it is not justifiable to frame charges under Section 394 IPC at this stage against the revisionists/accused persons. The impugned order dated 20.9.2025 is, thus liable to be set aside and, accordingly, set aside.
14. This criminal revision stands allowed.
(Abdul Shahid,J.) October 28, 2025 sfa/