Allahabad High Court
Rohit Sharma Alias Bholu Sharma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. on 22 September, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:58312
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 455 of 2025
Rohit Sharma Alias Bholu Sharma
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Lokendra Kumar Gupta, Ravendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the revisionist and affidavit filed by State in the Court today are taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Lokendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record.
3. By means of instant CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 455 of 2025, revisionist/Rohit Sharma Alias Bholu Sharma has impeached the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by Special Judge NIA/ATS-Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 5, Lucknow (in short "trial court") in Session Trial No. 1446/2022 (State vs. Shiva Gupta and others).
4. It is to be noted that according to the statement of revisionist before the trial court recorded on 24.03.2023, his particulars are 'Golu Sharma @ Rohit Sharma' S/o Anoop Sharma aged about 22 years R/o Quarter No. 6, Fire Station near Hallet Road, Moradabad.
5. It is also to be noted that the instant revision has been filed alongwith an application (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025) seeking condonation of delay of about 705 days in preferring the instant revision. To condone the delay, following averments have been made in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay:-
"3. ?? ?? ???????????? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???
4. ?? ?? ???????????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???????? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? 482 ????????? ?? ??????? ?????? 18.01.24 ?? ???????? ?? ?? ?????? ??0-?-482 ??0-593/2024 ??????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????????? ???
5. ?? ?? ???????????? ?? ????? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???????????? ?? ??? ???????? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ???????????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???????????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ???? 482 ????????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ???
6. ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ???????????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? 482 ????????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ?????? 25.08.2023 ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ???
7. ?? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???"
6. From a bare perusal of above quoted portion of the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay, it is apparent that the revisionist has failed to explain the delay of about 705 days in approaching this Court. However, considering the fact that right of revisionist is affecting, as by means of impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the trial court has summoned Beenu and revisionist/Golu Sharma @ Rohit Sharma (indicated as Rohit Sharma Alias Bholu Sharma in this revision) (in short "Golu Sharma") to face the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 307/120-B, 302/120-B IPC, this Court is of the view that delay in filing the instant revision is liable to be condoned. It is accordingly condoned. Application (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025) is allowed.
7. At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that vide impugned order dated 30.06.2023, one Beenu and revisionist have been summoned by the trial court in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial for the offence under Sections 307/120-B and 302/120-B IPC. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 reads as under:-
"???? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ????-??????, ????-????????? ?????? ?????? 05.06.2021 ?? ????-?????? ????????? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? "??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???, ???? ???-?? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??, ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???, ?? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ????, ????, ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???, ??? ???? ?? ??? ? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???, ???????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???, ???????? ? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ? ???????? ?? ??? ??, ???? ??? ??? ???? 06:00-06:30 ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????, ?????? ?????, ??? ????? ? ????? 10-12 ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??, ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????, ?????, ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????, ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?????????? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ??, ?? ??????? ??? ????? ??, ????? ???? ?????? ??, ????????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???, ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??, ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????" ???? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????-?????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????-413/2021 ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?????????-1 ???? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???-???? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ?????, ????? ????, ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??, ???? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ?????????-3 ???? ????? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ??, ?? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????????? ?? ?? ??? ??, ??? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ? ??? ?? ?????????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? 161 ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? / ???? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ?????????-2 ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? 05.06.2021 ?? ???? ? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??, ???? ??????? ????????? ?????? ?
?? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????????-1 ???? ????? ?????? ???? ? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????????-1 ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????????? ??, ?? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??, ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ??, ???? ???? ?????? ?????????-3 ???? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ???? / ?????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ??????????, ?????? ?????, ??? ????? ? ????? 10-12 ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??, ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????, ?????, ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???
?? ??? ??????? ???????? ???????? ??? ???? ?????????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?????????? ?????????? ???? ? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???????? ???????? ????-307/120??, 302/120?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ????????????? ??????? ???? 319 ?????????? ???????? 28.04.2023 ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???
????
??????? ?????? ???????? ????????????? ??????? ???? 319 ?????????? ???????? 28.04.2023 ??????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ???????? ?????? ????-??????, ????-????????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????-6 ???? ?????? ?? ???, ????? ???, ????????? ?? ???? ???????? ???????? ????-307/120??, 302/120?? ?????? ???? ?????? 15.07.2023 ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????????? ?? ?????? 11.07.2023 ???? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???"
8. In order to coming to the conclusion as to whether any interference is required in the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the trial court, this Court considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also the facts brought to the notice of this Court, which are as under:-
(i) Beenu, who has also been summoned in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 307/120-B, 302/120-B IPC , had lodged an FIR No. 0413/2021 on 05.06.2021 at about 22.41 hours at Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad in regard to an incident taken place on 05.06.2021 at about 6.00-6.30 P.M. making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 307, 506, 34, 427 IPC against four persons namely Shiva Gupta, Hemant Kashyap, Aman Thakur, Aadarsh and 10-12 unknown persons.
(ii) As per this FIR, the incident took place at Mandi Samiti, District- Moradabad and Beenu (informant), Golu Sharma (revisionist) and Dev Kashyap (deceased) were present at the said place on 05.06.2021 at about 6.30 P.M.
(iii) The FIR further indicates that Beenu (informant) while on the way to the house of his friend namely Aman resident of Mandi Samiti met with Golu Sharma (revisionist) and Dev Kashyap.
(iv) The FIR also indicates that upon reaching the Mandi Samiti, the accused namely Shiva Gupta, Hemant Kashyap, Aman Thakur, Aadarsh and 10-12 unknown persons thrown country made bombs and also opened fire upon Beenu (informant), Golu Sharma (revisionist) and Dev Kashyap.
(v) In the incident, only Dev Kashyap sustained injuries, which could be caused by country made bombs and country made pistols/pistols. Beenu and Golu Sharma did not sustain any injury.
(vi) On 12.10.2022, the Beenu (informant) was examined before the trial court and he did not support the story of prosecution.
(vii) On 24.03.2023, Satish Kashyap (father of deceased Dev Kashyap) was examined. As per this witness, Beenu (informant) and Golu Sharma (revisionist) came to his house on 05.06.2021 (date of incident) and on account of leave he was present at the house and deceased went with Beenu (informant) and Golu Sharma (revisionist) and thereafter he received call from his son namely Piyush regarding the incident.
(viii) The aforesaid indicates that Satish Kashyap is the witness of last seen, who before the trial court further stated that Beenu (informant) and Golu Sharma (revisionist) were involved in the incident.
(ix) The relevant portion of the statement of Satish Kashyap (father of deceased namely Dev Kashyap) is extracted hereunder:-
"?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ?????, ??? ???? 46-47 ???? ???? ?? ???? ????, ???? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ???-
???? 05.06.2021 ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? 6 ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ????????? ???????....................
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ??????????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? 1 ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???????????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?.??.??.?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??????- ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????- ?????? ??? ????? ??????- ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????- ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????"
(x) On 24.03.2023, Golu Sharma (revisionist) was also examined before the trial court.
(xi) According to the statement of revisionist Golu Sharma @ Rohit Sharma, Beenu (informant) was the pillion rider of the motorcycle driven by Dev Kashyap (deceased) and both these persons reached his house and thereafter he accompanied these two persons on the motorcycle which went in a manhole and therefore, all the persons fell on earth. He did not support the story of prosecution and thereafter he was declared hostile by the trial court and was cross-examined by the Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) (in short "ADGC").
9. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that neither Beenu (informant) nor Golu Sharma (revisionist) are the truthful witnesses. It is for the following reasons:-
(i) As per Beenu (informant), he was not present at the situs of crime and as per Golu Sharma, Beenu (informant) and Dev Kashyap (deceased) and also Golu Sharma (revisionist) were together in the evening of 05.06.2021 at about 6.30 P.M. (date and time, respectively, of the incident).
(ii) If the story of Golu Sharma (revisionist), as stated before the trial court, is taken on its face value, then in that eventuality Dev Kashyap ought to have sustained the injures, which could be sustained in an accident. However, Dev Kashyap (deceased) sustained injuries, which could be sustained by 'Barood'.
10. From the aforesaid, it also appears that Satish Kashyap father of Dev Kashyap (deceased) is the witness of last seen and the revisionist has been summoned with the aid of Section 120-B IPC.
11. The law on the issue is well settled. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, Brijendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706, Rajesh and Others Vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368, Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2021) 18 SCC 321, Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289, Yashodhan Singh and Others Vs. State of U. P. and Others, (2023) LiveLaw (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652, the trial Court while exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is under obligation to consider the evidence recorded before it during trial as also the evidence received by it after cognizance is taken and before commencement of trial.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) in para 78 observed 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. It is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or the court to decide whether the power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during the investigation". and thereafter in para 85 it has been observed that "in view of the discussion made and the conclusion drawn hereinabove, the answer to the aforesaid question posed is that apart from evidence recorded during trial, any material that has been received by the court after cognizance is taken and before the trial commences, can be utilised only for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the court to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC. The "evidence" is thus, limited to the evidence recorded during trial." and subsequently, in the case of Rajesh and Others (supra) in para 6.8 held that "Considering the law laid down by this Court in Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] and the observations and findings referred to and reproduced hereinabove, it emerges that (i) the Court can exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned and the Court need not wait till the cross-examination of such a witness and the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination; and (ii) a person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 CrPC, provided from the evidence (may be on the basis of the evidence collected in the form of statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned), it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial." and thereafter, in the case of Manjeet Singh (supra) observed as under: "15. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions on the scope and ambit of the powers of the court under Section 319CrPC can be summarised as under: 15.1. That while exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC and to summon the persons not charge-sheeted, the entire effort is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence to get away unpunished. 15.2. For the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the criminal administration of justice works properly. 15.3. The law has been properly codified and modified by the legislature under CrPC indicating as to how the courts should proceed to ultimately find out the truth so that the innocent does not get punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to book under the law. 15.4. To discharge duty of the court to find out the real truth and to ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished. 15.5. 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. 15.6. Section 319CrPC allows the court to proceed against any person who is not an accused in a case before it. 15.7. The court is the sole repository of justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore, it will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such powers with the courts in our criminal justice system where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at times, get away by manipulating the investigating and/or the prosecuting agency. 15.8. Section 319CrPC is an enabling provision empowering the court to take appropriate steps for proceeding against any person not being an accused for also having committed the offence under trial. 15.9. The power under Section 319(1)CrPC can be exercised at any stage after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment, except during the stage of Sections 207/208CrPC, committal, etc. which is only a pre-trial stage intended to put the process into motion. 15.10. The court can exercise the power under Section 319CrPC only after the trial proceeds and commences with the recording of the evidence. 15.11. The word "evidence" in Section 319CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents. 15.12. It is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or the court to decide whether the power under Section 319CrPC is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during the investigation. 15.13. If the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief, it can exercise the power under Section 319CrPC and can proceed against such other person(s). 15.14. That if the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief, powers under Section 319CrPC can be exercised. 15.15. That power under Section 319CrPC can be exercised even at the stage of completion of examination-in-chief and the court need not to wait till the said evidence is tested on cross-examination. 15.16. Even in a case where the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, the court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319CrPC and even those persons named in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet can be summoned to face the trial, provided during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused (may be in the form of examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses). 15.17. While exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC the court is not required and/or justified in appreciating the deposition/evidence of the prosecution witnesses on merits which is required to be done during the trial. 16. Applying the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand we are of the opinion that the learned trial court as well as the High Court have materially erred in dismissing the application under Section 319CrPC and refusing to summon the private respondents herein to face the trial in exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC. It is required to be noted that in FIR No. 477 all the private respondents herein who are sought to be arraigned as additional accused were specifically named with specific role attributed to them. It is specifically mentioned that while they were returning back, Mahindra XUV bearing no. HR 40A 4352 was standing on the road which belongs to Sartaj Singh and Sukhpal. Tejpal, Parab Saran Singh, Preet Samrat and Sartaj were standing. Parab Sharan was having lathi in his hand, Tejpal was having a gandasi, Sukhpal was having a danda, Sartaj was having a revolver and Preet Singh was sitting in the jeep. It is specifically mentioned in the FIR that all the aforesaid persons with common intention parked the Mahindra XUV HR 40A 4352 in a manner which blocks the entire road and they were armed with the weapons. 17. Despite the above specific allegations, when the charge-sheet/final report came to be filed only two persons came to be charge-sheeted and the private respondents herein, though named in the FIR, were put/kept in Column 2. It is the case on behalf of the private respondents herein that four different DSPs inquired into the matter and thereafter when no evidence was found against them the private respondents herein were put in Column 2 and therefore the same is to be given much weightage rather than considering/believing the examination-in-chief of the appellant herein. Heavy reliance is placed on Brijendra Singh [Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 144] . 18. However none of DSPs and/or their reports, if any, are part of the charge-sheet. None of the DSPs are shown as witnesses. None of the DSPs are investigating officer. Even on considering the final report/charge-sheet as a whole there does not appear to be any consideration on the specific allegations qua the accused, the private respondents herein, who are kept in Column 2. Entire discussion in the charge-sheet/final report is against Sartaj Singh only. 19. So far as the private respondents are concerned only thing which is stated is:"During the investigation of the present case, Shri Baljinder Singh, HPS, DSP Assandh and Shri Kushalpal, HPS, DSP Indri found accused Tejpal Singh, Sukhpal Singh, sons of Gurdev Singh, Parab Sharan Singh and Preet Samrat Singh sons of Mohan Sarup Singh caste Jat Sikh, residents of Bandrala innocent and accordingly Sections 148, 149 and 341IPC were deleted in the case and they were kept in Column 2, whereas challan against accused Sartaj has been presented in the Court." 20. Now thereafter when in the examination-in-chief the appellant herein ? victim ? injured eyewitness has specifically named the private respondents herein with specific role attributed to them, the learned trial court as well as the High Court ought to have summoned the private respondents herein to face the trial. At this stage it is required to be noted that so far as the appellant herein is concerned he is an injured eyewitness. As observed by this Court in State of M.P. v. Mansingh [State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 390] (para 9); Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] ; State of U.P. v. Naresh [State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 216] , the evidence of an injured eyewitness has greater evidential value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. As observed hereinabove while exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC the court has not to wait till the cross-examination and on the basis of the examination-in-chief of a witness if a case is made out, a person can be summoned to face the trial under Section 319CrPC. 21. Now so far as the reasoning given by the High Court while dismissing the revision application and confirming the order passed by the learned trial court dismissing the application under Section 319CrPC is concerned, the High Court itself has observed that PW 1 Manjeet Singh is the injured witness and therefore his presence cannot be doubted as he has received firearm injuries along with the deceased. However, thereafter the High Court has observed that the statement of Manjeet Singh indicates over implication and that no injury has been attributed to either of the respondents except that they were armed with weapons and the injuries concerned are attributed only to Sartaj Singh, even for the sake of arguments if someone was present with Sartaj Singh it cannot be said that they had any common intention or there was meeting of mind or knew that Sartaj would be firing. The aforesaid reasonings are not sustainable at all. 22. At the stage of exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC, the court is not required to appreciate and/or enter on the merits of the allegations of the case. The High Court has lost sight of the fact that the allegations against all the accused persons right from the very beginning were for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 341, 148 & 149IPC. The High Court has failed to appreciate the fact that for attracting the offence under Section 149IPC only forming part of unlawful assembly is sufficient and the individual role and/or overt act is immaterial. Therefore, the reasoning given by the High Court that no injury has been attributed to either of the respondents except that they were armed with weapons and therefore, they cannot be added as accused is unsustainable. The learned trial court and the High Court have failed to exercise the jurisdiction and/or powers while exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC. 23. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the private respondents that though a common judgment and order was passed by the High Court in Satkar Singh v. State of Haryana [ CRR No. 3238 of 2018 reported as Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2782 sub nom Satkar Singh v. State of Haryana] at that stage the appellant herein did not prefer appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana [Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2782 [Ed. : This also disposed of CRR No. 3238 of 2018 by a common judgment and order]] and therefore this Court may not exercise the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution is concerned the aforesaid has no substance. Once it is found that the learned trial court as well as the High Court ought to have summoned the private respondents herein as additional accused, belated filing of the appeal or not filing the appeal at a relevant time when this Court considered the very judgment and order in Satkar Singh v. State of Haryana [ CRR No. 3238 of 2018 reported as Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2782 sub nom Satkar Singh v. State of Haryana] cannot be a ground not to direct to summon the private respondents herein when this Court has found that a prima facie case is made out against the private respondents herein and they are to be summoned to face the trial. 24. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the private respondents that though in the charge-sheet the private respondents herein were put in Column 2 at that stage the complainant side did not file any protest application is concerned, the same has been specifically dealt with by this Court in Rajesh [Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 801] . This Court in the aforesaid decision has specifically observed that even in a case where the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well as who were named in the FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, the court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319CrPC. 25. Similarly, the submission on behalf of the private respondents herein that after the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court there is much progress in the trial and therefore at this stage power under Section 319CrPC may not be exercised is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance and cannot be accepted. As per the settled proposition of law and as observed by this Court in Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] , the powers under Section 319CrPC can be exercised at any stage before the final conclusion of the trial. Even otherwise it is required to be noted that at the time when the application under Section 319CrPC was given only one witness was examined and examination-in-chief of PW 1 was recorded and while the cross-examination of PW 1 was going on, application under Section 319CrPC was given which came to be rejected by the learned trial court. The order passed by the learned trial court is held to be unsustainable. If the learned trial court would have summoned the private respondents herein at that stage such a situation would not have arisen. Be that as it may, as observed herein powers under Section 319CrPC can be exercised at any stage from commencing of the trial and recording of evidence/deposition and before the conclusion of the trial at any stage. 26. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2782 [Ed. : This also disposed of CRR No. 3238 of 2018 by a common judgment and order]] passed by the High Court and that of the learned trial court dismissing the application under Section 319CrPC submitted on behalf of the complainant to summon the private respondents herein as additional accused are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. Consequently the application submitted on behalf of the complainant to summon the private respondents herein is hereby allowed and the learned trial court is directed to summon the private respondents herein to face the trial arising out of FIR No. 477 dated 27-7-2016 in Sessions Case No. 362 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 148 & 149IPC."
13. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and also settled proposition of law on the issue, this Court finds no force in the instant revision. It is for the following reasons:-
(i) The law says that for summoning a person to face the trial in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the court should come to the satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead conviction. [see: Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92.]
(ii) In the instant case, the trial court considered (i) the case setup in the aforesaid FIR and (ii) the statement of Satish Kashyap father of Dev Kashyap (deceased), who appears to be a witness of last seen and if his evidence goes unrebutted then the same would lead to conviction of the revisionist.
14. In view of aforesaid, this Court finds that conclusion of trial court is just and proper.
15. Having observed above, the instant revision is dismissed.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.) September 22, 2025 Arun/-