Allahabad High Court
Ashwani Upadhyay vs State Of U.P.And Another on 26 July, 2021
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 852 of 2021 Revisionist :- Ashwani Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel representing opposite party-2.
2. Perused the record.
3. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging order dated 02.03.2021 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Kasganj in Sessions Trial No. 220 of 2019 (State vs. Shanu) under Section 304 I.P.C. P.S. Kasganj, District-Kasganj arising out of Case Crime No. 129 of 2019 under Section 304 I.P.C. Police Station-Kasganj, District-Kasganj whereby revisionist alongwith two others have been summoned by court below in above mentioned Sessions Trial in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
4. Record shows that during pendency of above mentioned Sessions Trial, learned Sessions Judge examined P.W.-1,Layeek, P.W.-2,Surjeet and P.W.-3 Salma. On the basis of testimony of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, informant/opposite party-2 filed an application dated 08.02.2021 in above mentioned trial alleging therein that as per testimonies of aforesaid three witnesses complicity of revisionist and two others in the crime in question is also established. As such, they also be summoned to face trial. Court below proceeded with above mentioned application and upon evaluation of testimonies of informant, P.W.1-Layeek, P.W.2-Surjeet and P.W.-3 Salma prima-facie found the complicity of revisionist and 2 others established. Consequently, court below summoned the revisionist Ashwani Upadhyay as well as Firoz and Sakeel in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 02.03.2021. Feeling aggrieved by above mentioned order, revisionist has now approached this Court by means of present criminal revision.
5. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for revisionist contends that there are contradictions in the prosecution case as per N.C.R. report, first information report and testimonies of P.W.1-Layeek, P.W.2-Surjeet and P.W.-3 Salma. It is then contended that P.W1-Layeek, P.W.2-Surjeet and P.W.-3 Salma are neither credible nor reliable witness therefore, their testimonies are not worthy of trust. It is also submitted that P.W.-2 has not supported the prosecution case. On the aforesaid premise, it is submitted that impugned order dated 02.03.2021 passed by court below summoning the revisionist and others is manifestly illegal.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel representing informant/opposite party-2 have opposed present criminal revision. Placing reliance upon Constitution Bench judgement of Apex Court in Hardeep Singh etc. Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in 2014 (3) SCC 92, it is urged that court below decided application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. perfectly according to law. Court below only examined whether on the basis of testimonies of prosecution witnesses namely P.W.1-Layeek, P.W.2-Surjeet and P.W.-3 Salma complicity of accused, who are sought to be summoned is established or not. Upon examination in the light of above noted judgement, court below has summoned revisionist and others. As such, no error or illegality has been committed by court below.
7 Having heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel representing opposite party-2, this Court find that revisionist and others have been summoned by court below on the basis of testimonies of prosecution witnesses namely P.W.1-Layeek, P.W.2-Surjeet and P.W.-3 Salma. Perusal of testimonies of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 clearly shows complicity of revisionist and 2 others with crime in question.This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. cannot evaluate or appreciate the testimony of prosecution witnesses to record a finding regarding their credibility or reliability. As such, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned.
8.In view of above, this court does find any good ground to entertain present revision.
9. Revision lacks merit. Same is liable to be dismissed.
10. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2021 YK