Allahabad High Court
Shailendra Kumar Shukla And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ... on 26 March, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17632
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 210 of 2025
Revisionist :- Shailendra Kumar Shukla And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arun Sinha,Ram Chandra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Kumar Bajpai,Ramakar Shukla,Suparna Mishra
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Shri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite party no. 1 and Sri Rajiv Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that according to the first information report being Case Crime No. 164 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 427 IPC lodged at Police Station -Amethi, District ? Amethi, it was alleged that there was existing enmity between the complainant and the revisionists. It is further stated that on 30.04.2021, at around 3.30PM son of the complainant Rahul Singh had gone to Maharajpur for some work, when nine accused persons including the revisionists who were hiding near Gramin Bank, allegedly armed with lathi, danda and country made pistols assaulted son of complainant and when alarm was raised, one Shivendra Singh the younger son of the complainant alongwith some other persons reached the spot and tried to intervene, it is alleged that accused Adesh Singh and Vipin Singh fired at Rahul Singh (son of complainant) with country made pistol causing injuries to him. Injured Rahul Singh was take to hospital where succumbed to the injuries.
3. It is further further submitted that investigation was carried out and during investigation Shailendra Kumar Shukla (revisionist no. 1), Shantanu Shukla (revisionist no. 2), Shubham Pandey, Adesh Singh were not found to be involved in the said incident and accordingly their names were removed during investigation and charge sheet was filed with regard to other accused named in the first information report.
4. It is also submitted that charge sheet was filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction and trial proceeded where all the prosecution witnesses have been examined. At this stage an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed seeking summoning of accused persons who were removed by the Police during investigation. It has been submitted that during investigation there was cogent material available with the Police indicating that at the time of occurrence of the said incident, the revisionists were not present at the scene of occurrence and on the basis of cogent and reliable material, during investigation was found that their alibi was worth believing and hence their names were excluded from the list of accused persons.
5. 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 laid on para 21). It is submitted that there was sufficient material which has been brought forth during trial implicating the revisionists and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. It submitted that revisionist no. 1 ? Shailendra Kumar Shukla has criminal history of one case under Section 323 IPC.
6. With regard to criminal history of revisionist no. 1, it is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that with regard to same the revisionist no. 1 has not received any notice from any Court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
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 the prosecution witnesses clearly allege complicity of the revisionists.
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, and also the impugned order dated 17.12.2024, from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, prima facie, complicity of the revisionists 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 revisionists submits that the revisionists may be permitted to surrender before the learned Sessions Court and considering the fact that they did not have any criminal history and keeping them in custody will not serve any purpose. Learned counsel for the revisionists undertakes on behalf of the revisionist that they will cooperate in the trial.
14. In view of the above, the revisionists Shailendra Kumar Shukla and Shantanu Shukla are directed to be released on bail after filing of adequate sureties and bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Court.
Order Date :- 26.3.2025
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
