Allahabad High Court
Amit vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 October, 2025
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:189753
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3846 of 2024
Amit
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Surya Pratap Singh Parmar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit has been filed today in Court; the same is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.
3. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred for setting aside the impugned summoning order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2021 (State of U.P. vs. Amit @ Sadhu and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 406 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station ? Gopiganj, District ? Bhadohi, whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the appellant as an additional accused has been allowed. A further prayer has been made to quash the proceedings of NBW and under Section 82 Cr.P.C. issued pursuant thereto.
4. The principal submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the court below has failed to appreciate that the evidence relied upon does not attain the degree of strength and cogency required for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is contended that mere mention of the appellant?s name in the deposition does not suffice unless the evidence is such as would reasonably lead to conviction if unrebutted. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Shankar vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 (30) JIC 410 (SC) and Bijendra Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, 2017 (2) JIC 825 (SC).
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the trial court has carefully examined the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded during trial, particularly that of P.W.2 (injured witness), who has fully supported the prosecution version and specifically implicated the appellant. It is contended that the court below, upon due consideration, found sufficient material to summon the appellant, and the impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record, this Court finds that the trial court has assigned reasons with reference to the deposition of prosecution witnesses, who have specifically attributed overt acts to the appellant.
7. It is well settled that the expression ?evidence? occurring in Section 319 Cr.P.C. means such evidence as is adduced before the Court in the course of trial, and even a statement made in examination-in-chief may suffice for invoking the said power if it discloses a strong prima facie case.
8. The authorities cited on behalf of the appellant do lay down that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence is available. In the present case, however, the court below, upon analyzing the depositions and other material available on record, has reached the satisfaction that such material exists warranting summoning of the appellant. This Court does not find any perversity, arbitrariness, or manifest illegality in the impugned order so as to warrant interference in appeal.
9. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed.
(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)
October 29, 2025
A.
