Allahabad High Court
Motilal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:96149
Judgement Reserved on 08.04.2026
Judgement Delivered on 29.04.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6034 of 2025
Motilal
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Sanjeev Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
Along with :
1.
Criminal Revision No. 5736 of 2025:
Ashok and another
Versus
State of U.P. and another
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.
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.
5. During the examination, the statements of fact witnesses PW1 and PW4 did not clearly establish any specific role of the revisionist/accused in the application. The prosecution evidence indicates that the alleged incident occurred suddenly during a panchayat meeting, making it impossible for all those present to be held responsible within the meaning of sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. injured as well as independent witnesses of the locality. Jai Govind Yadav, in his statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in the main examination and the eyewitnesses Shakuntala, Neetu and Ritu, in their statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in the main examination, while supporting the incident, have stated the involvement of the proposed accused Moti Lal, Ashok and Pawan.
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.
12. Here only, it would be pertinent to extract the relevant provision of s.319CrPC:
“319 Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence –
(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then-
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” The statement of law in this regard is contained in paras 105 and 106 respectively of Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 :(2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] :(SCC p. 138) 4.
“105. Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if ‘it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence’ is clear from the words ‘for which such person could be tried together with the accused.’ The words used are not ‘for which such person could be convicted’. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of OMI @ OMKAR RATHORE & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 27, in para 21 has outlined the principles that have to be kept in mind at the time of deciding application under section 319 Cr.P.C/s.358 BNSS after taking into account the broad principles laid down in the case of Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92.
“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 12 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.
c. 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.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles for summoning of a person as accused under s.319 Cr.P.C. in the case Shivbaran Vs. State of U.P.(2025 INSC 860) in para 15 thereof-
(a) This provision is a facet of that area of law which gives protection to victims and society at large, ensuring that the perpetrators of crime should not escape the force of law;
(b) It is the duty cast upon the Court not to let the guilty get away unpunished;
(c) The Trial Court has broad but not unbridled power as this power can be exercised only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not any other material collected during investigation;
(d) The Trial Court is not powerless to summon a person who is not named in the FIR or Chargesheet; they can be impleaded if the evidence adduced inculpates him;
(e) This power is not to be exercised in a regular or cavalier manner, but only when strong or cogent evidence is available than the mere probability of complicity;
(f) The degree of satisfaction required is much stricter than the prima facie case, which is needed at the time of framing of charge(s);
(g) The Court should not conduct a mini-trial at this stage as the expression used is ‘such person could be tried’ and not ‘should be tried’.
13. In the light of above principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is prima-facie evidence against the revisionists/accused persons namely Motilal, Ashok and Pawan for summoning them to face trial under 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 308, 325, 452, 323, 504, 506 of IPC.
14. There is no material or procedural illegality or irregularity in the impugned 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.
15. In view of the above discussion, the instant revisions are hereby dismissed.
(Achal Sachdev,J.)
April 29, 2026
Zafar
Â
Â