Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rita Prakash vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:185457
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4733 of 2025
Smt. Rita Prakash
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Gauri Shanker Mishra, Rahul Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Virendra Kumar
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1 and Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.
2. This criminal revision is directed against the impugned order dated 15.7.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Agra in Session Trial No. 1549 of 2021 (State Vs. Upendra Nath), whereby the application (32- Kha), moved by the informant-revisionist, under Section 216 Cr.P.C./239 of BNSS for altering the charge under Section 498A, 306, 507, 120-B IPC into Sections 498A, 302, 507, 120B IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 445 of 2021, Police Station Sikandra District Agra has been rejected.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the daughter of the revisionist was married with the opposite party no.2, who is in service at Agra and the opposite party no.2 developed an illicit relation with one Rashmi Rawat and when daughter of the revisionist objected to the continuance illicit relation, she was put to physical violence and even Rashmi Rawat used to intimidate her daughter on mobile phone that she will ruin her life. On 13.7.2021 after a well hatched conspiracy between opposite party no.2 and said Rashmi, the daughter of the revisionist was murdered by the accused. On 14.7.2021, the revisionist has lodged a first information report which was registered as Case Crime No. 445 of 2021, under Section 498A, 302, 507 IPC, P.S. Sikandra District Agra against the accused-opposite party no.2 and said Rashmi Rawat.
4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against the accused-opposite party no.2 under Section 498A, 507, 306 and 120B IPC and Section 302 IPC has been deleted. On said charge sheet, the cognizance has been taken and the case was committed to learned Session Judge for trial being triable by Session Judge and same resulted in registration of Session Trial No. 1549 of 2021 (State Vs. Upendra Nath), under Section 498A, 306, 507, 120B IPC, P.S. Sikandra, District Agra.
5. During the pendency of trial, the informant-revisionist has moved an application on 27.6.2025 under Section 216 IPC/239 of BNSS, 2023 (paper No. 32 Kha) stating that the first information report was registered under Section 498A, 302, 507 IPC, but the charge sheet has wrongly been submitted under Section 498A, 306, 507, 120-B IPC as from the statement of all the witnesses, case of murder is duly proved and, therefore, the accused be tried under Section 302 alongwith other sections.
6. Contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the trial court has wrongly rejected the application of the informant-revisionist without appreciating the material available on record. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order dated 15.7.2025 suffers with complete non application of mind. The learned trial court has completely ignored the eye witness account of the deceased's daughter PW-3 Trishu. He also submitted that she lost her mother and there is no reason why she falsely implicate her father at the risk of even loosing her father too. He also submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court has totally failed to assess the material presented by the prosecution which has, prima facie, disclosed all ingredients of the offence under Section 302 IPC. The revision is liable to be allowed.
7. Learned AGA has submitted that the impugned order, passed by the trial court is absolutely as per law. There is no illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, hence the revision is liable to be dismissed.
8. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the FIR of the incident was lodged by the mother of the deceased Smt. Reeta Prakash on 14.7.2021 under Sections 498A, 302 and 507 IPC. She stated that she married her daughter with the accused-opposite party no.2 eight years prior to the said incident. There were allegations of illicit relation with another lady. She got the information of the alleged incident on 13.7.2021 at 9.00 p.m. The FIR was lodged on 14.7.2021. The charges were framed against the accused-opposite party no.2 on 15.7.2022 under Section 498A, 306, 120B and 507 IPC. The statement of Reeta Prakash (mother of the deceased)/PW-1 was recorded on 30.8.2022. The statement of PW-2 Sumit Prakash (brother of deceased) was recorded on 11.11.2022. Thereafter, an application was moved on 15.4.2023 for amendment of charge which was rejected on 15.7.2023. Thereafter, the statement of Trishu/child witness (daughter of the deceased) was recorded on 5.8.2023. The statement of PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 were also recorded. The statement of Dr. Pramod Kumar Kushwaha as PW-7 was recorded, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased and deposed that there was no injury on the body of the deceased. She died and the cause of death by him was due to hanging. Thereafter, statement of formal witnesses were also recorded. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 31.5.2025. Thereafter, the present application (32-Kha) under Section 239 of BNSS, 2023 (216 Cr.P.C.) was filed on 27.6.2025 which was rejected after hearing both the parties with a detailed order on 15.7.2025, hence the present criminal revision is before this Court.
9. The first application which was filed on 15.4.2023 for amendment of charge had already been dismissed on 15.7.2023. Thereafter, the statement of all the witnesses had been completed, even statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. Thereafter, the present application has been filed. The alleged incident is of July 2021. Statement of Trishu (PW-3)/daughter of deceased, who is a child witness was recorded on 5.8.2023 and at the time of recording of her statement, she was aged about 9 years, hence at the time of incident, she was approximately 7 years old.
10. Learned trial court has mentioned that PW-2 Reeta Prakash (mother of the deceased) had admitted that she did not saw the accused with Rashmi Rawat. She also deposed that there was no eye witness of the said incident. PW-2 Sumit Prakash (brother of the deceased) deposed that he got the information of the death of the deceased by the accused-opposite party no. 2 and there is no eye witness. Trishu, who is stated to be by the prosecution as star witness deposed that her mother became angry and thereafter she went to her room and hanged herself. Thereafter, Papa(father) pushed and open the door. It is also undisputed that this witness is in the custody of her maternal grand-mother since death of her mother.
11. As per statement of doctor, no injury was found on the body of the deceased except hanging. The statements of all the fact witnesses of the prosecution as well as formal witnesses have already been completed. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded on 31.5.2025. Thereafter, the present application (32 Kha) was moved on 27.6.2025 which has also been rejected on 15.7.2025 with a detailed reasoned and speaking order.
12. It is not justifiable at this stage of criminal revision to appreciate the evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial court. No observation on the evidence has been recorded or appreciated by this Court. The trial court has to properly appreciate the available evidence on record and decide the pending session trial in accordance with law.
13. In view thereof, there is neither illegality nor irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Therefore, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Abdul Shahid,J.) October 14, 2025 sfa/