Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2/informant, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. Both the Criminal Revision Nos.6034 of 2025 and 5736 of 2025 are arising out of the same impugned order, therefore, both are to be decided by a common order.

3. These criminal revisions have been preferred by the revisionists/accused persons with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act) Court No.1, Gorakhpur, in Sessions Trial No.582 of 2022 (State Vs. Paras Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.392 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 308, 325, 452, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Harpur Budhat, District Gorakhpur, by which the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the opposite party no.2/informant for summoning the revisionists/accused persons was allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the informant/opposite party no.2 had lodged first information report against the revisionists/accused persons and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 308, 325, 452, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, which was registered as Case Crime No.392 of 2020. It is alleged in the FIR that on 11.08.2020 at around 9:30 am, a discussion regarding the mutual partition of land was taking place in the village of informant/opposite party no.2 between Ramashankar and Ramashish. Their houses are situated adjacent to that of informant/opposite party no.2. His father, Kamla Yadav was present at his doorstep specifically to the south of the veranda where the heat of argument was unfolding within the village assembly. From where he stood, his father loudly called out to them, urging both parties not to quarrel. At that moment, in a fit of rage, the revisionists and thirteen others, who were present in the assembly, became agitated. Amidst this, Paras S/o Khelai began hurling vile abuses and challenged the informant?s/opposite party?s no.2 father Kamla,with the intent to assault him. Subsequently, all the aforementioned accused armed with sticks, iron rods, hockey sticks, axes, and spears (while Shriram @ Santosh has carried the licensee firearm of Paras Yadav) joined Paras, Shyam, Mukesh, Ashok and Rakesh assaulted his father due to which he died on the spot. Upon hearing the commotion and screams, he, his sisters Shakuntala and Ritu and Neetu D/o Santraj rushed out of the house to save his father; however, all the accused persons including revisionists barged into their home while continuing to hurl filthy abuses regarding their mothers and sisters, and proceeded to beat all of them. Terrified, the informant?s/opposite party?s no.2 along with his family retreated further inside the house, whereupon Paras along with Shriram, Shyam, and Mukesh and the entire group continued to taunt them, daring them to do whatever they can now. Furthermore, with the specific intent to kill him, they said that we have already killed his father; now we must finish him off as well and with the malicious intent to commit murder and after the life-threatening assaulted them, the accused persons fled from the spot.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that the learned court below while disposing of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the opposite party no.2/informant, ignored the material available in the police report and has summoned the revisionists as accused in the present case.

8. Aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act) Court No.1, Gorakhpur, in Sessions Trial No.582 of 2022 (State Vs. Paras Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No.392 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 308, 325, 452, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Harpur Budhat, District Gorakhpur, the revisionists/accused persons have preferred the present revision.

9. Learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2/informant have strongly rebutted above arguments of learned counsel for the revisionists/accused persons and has submitted that impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the court below after applying proper judicial mind and examine the material available on record and there is no error in the impugned order.

10. Perused the record in the light of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

11. Jaygovind Yadav, the son of the deceased/victim was examined as P.W.-1, who in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the police had stated that the accused persons who were nominated in the FIR having lathi, danda, sariya (iron rod), rod, hockey, farsa and ballam and Shriram @ Santosh, who was having licensee gun of Paras Yadav started shouting and beating his father with the intention to kill him. He was sitting on a plank in the veranda of the house. His mother, Gyanmati, was sitting next to the veranda's leg. His sisters Shakuntala and Reetu, Neetu, mother Gyanmati, and he went to save his father Kamala, but these people started beating them too. When they ran into the house in fear for their lives, all of them, along with Shriram, Shyam, Rakesh, Vipin, and Paras entered in the house and started beating with the intention to kill them. They were saying that his father should be killed and he should also be killed while abusing. They suffered fatal injuries due to the beatings by these people. Informant?s/opposite party?s no.2 mother became unconscious due to the beatings by these people. His father died due to the beatings by these people. He further stated that the accused left them thinking that they were dead. Further, Bindu Devi, Shakuntala and Neetu Yadav were also examined as P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, respectively and they have supported the P.W.-1 Jaygovind Yadav.