Allahabad High Court
Vishwanath Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 24 April, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23627 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 451 of 2025 Revisionist :- Vishwanath Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arun Sinha,Ram Chandra Singh,Vivek Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Mr. Vivek Tripathi, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 today in Court is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for revisionist, Mr. Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. By means of the present revision under Section 438/442 of the Bharitya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (397/401 Cr.P.C.) the revisionist has assailed the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 458 of 2022, (State Vs. Raghunandan Singh and others) thereby summoning the revisionist as an accused and face trial arising out of FIR No. 10 of 2021 dated 10.01.2021 under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 325/149, 302/149, 452/149, 427/149, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that an FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2 where seven accused persons were named including the revisionist. During the investigation and after recording the statements of number of witnesses, the Investigating Officer was of the view that the revisionist could not be investigated in the said incident and consequently, a charge sheet was filed against the remaining accused persons. The trial had commenced and it is during trial after recording statements of PW-1 and PW-2, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning the revisionist as an accused and to try along with other accused persons in the present case.
5. Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are not corroborated by any other material collected during investigation and submits that the Investigating Officer has collected enough evidence coupled with the conduct of the complainant there was no cogent and reliable material before the trial court to have summoned the revisionist.
6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for revisionist has placed reliance upon a case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brijendra Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2017) 7 Supreme Court Cases 706. Emphasis is on paragraph no. 15 of the judgement.
7. 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.
8. 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 and PW-2, clearly allege complicity of the revisionists. The prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that on the exhortation of Raghunandan, the revisionist, and Abhishek Pratap Singh had fired with intention to kill and accordingly, considering the aforesaid material this Court finds that there was sufficient material before the trial court to have summoned the revisionist.
9. 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;"
10. 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."
11. In view of the above, so also the impugned order dated 27.03.2025, from the statements of two prosecution witnesses PW-1, and PW-2, prima facie, complicity of the revisionist 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.
12. The revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
13. 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 he 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 he will cooperate in the trial.
14. It is provided that in case the revisionist surrenders before the trial court and applies for bail, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
.
(Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Virendra