Allahabad High Court
Smt. Reena And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:157139
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3436 of 20240
Smt. Reena And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Swati Agrawal Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Deepanshu Dhuriya, Dileep Chandra Mishra, G.A.
Court No. - 92
HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 3.6.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (E.C. Act) Jalaun at Orai in Session Trial No. 182 of 2022 (State vs. Prabal Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 84 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, and Section 4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Kadaura, District Jalaun. By the impugned order, learned court below has summoned the revisionists as additional accused in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on application 11-kha filed by the informant- Birendra Sachan in this regard.
2. Submissions of Mrs. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State and Sri Deepanshu Dhuriya, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 are already heard.
3. Succinctly, relevant facts of the case are that the informant, defacto complainant, has lodged FIR with police station concerned on 28.05.2021 on the basis of written report with averment that he married his daughter Deepa on 10.3.2015 with Prabal Kumar son of Brij Lal, resident of village Sheehupur, P.S. Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar, according to Hindu rites and rituals and spent around Rs. 08 lakh in the marriage even then her husband and in-laws were not satisfied with dowry and gifts received in the marriage; the accused persons, who includes her husband, brothers-in-law Ajeet and Golu, mother-in-law, Malati, sister-in-law, Reena (Nanad) and her husband Sunil (Nandoi) started demanding Rs. 01 lakh cash and one gold chain as additional dowry when his daughter Deepa declined to their demands, they used to engage in Marpeet with her and also abused her; his daughter Deepa was educated and had also received training of GNM; her husband is private veterinary doctor and habitual drinker; he was residing with Deepa in a rented house in Kadaura, Jalaun at Orai, which was owned by Anuj Sachan; Nanad and Nandoi of Deepa used to visit her husband at Kadaura and they would also give threats and beatings to his daughter there; her Nanad and Nandoi would incite her husband to eliminate her and they will get him re-married. On 17.3.2021, one Praveen Kumar had informed him and his daughter Renu that condition of Deepa was very serious, rush to Hallet Hospital, whereupon, his brother-in-law Dhirendra and daughter rushed to Hallet hospital and found her condition precarious; she was not given proper treatment there and therefore, they get her shifted to Sahara hospital, Kalyanpur where she was admitted in ICU on 18.3.2021, after some improvement, she was shifted at Priya hospital on 25.3.2021, during her treatment on 5.4.2021 when she was in ICU, she gained consciousness and told the informant, his wife and family members through indication that on 17.3.2021, her husband, sister-in-law and brother-in-law had strangulated her with intention to kill her; thereafter she became unconscious; she ultimately died during treatment at Priya Hospital on 17.4.2021. On receiving information of her death, police reached on the spot and carried out inquest on 18.4.2021; her post mortem examination was conducted; he was also told by landlord Anuj Sachan and his mother Sudha telephonically that neck of Deepa was pressed by Dupatta and to give it shape of hanging; Dupatta was tied with window; she was lying half on the floor; she could not have hanged herself by a small window; all these three persons had strangulated her by Dupatta, who died due to this injury during course of treatment; this murder was done by her husband, Nanad and Nandoi in a planned manner due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry.
4. The FIR was lodged under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B IPC and of D.P. Act on 28.5.2021 at 23:27 hours against 06 named accused persons as stated above. The police investigated the case and recorded statement of informant Birendra Sachan, witnesses Anuj, his wife and mother Sudha, other family members and relatives of the deceased and submitted charge-sheet against accused Prabal Kumar and deleted the other named accused persons including the revisionists in the charge-sheet. Learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of session where charges were framed against chargesheeted accused Prabal Kumar, the husband of the deceased. Learned trial court framed charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act against accused Prabal Kumar. After recording evidence during trial of PW-1 Birendra and PW-2 Reenu, sister of the deceased, an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the informant in which he prayed for summoning the revisionists Smt. Reena and Sunil as accused to face trial together with accused Prabal Kumar, who is already facing trial. The chargesheeted accused Prabal Kumar filed objection on said application. Learned trial court heard the submission of informant and accused side and after considering the evidence adduced, during trial, found a prima facie case to summon the revisionists for charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act and opined that joint trial of Smt. Reena and Sunil with accused Prabal Kumar is expedient under said Sections. Accordingly, learned trial court allowed the application 11-kha and issued process against the revisionists to summon them under Sections 498-A, 304-B and Section 4 of D.P. Act.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the accused, who are sister-in-law and brother-in-law (Nandoi) of the deceased, have filed present revision.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the accused are Nanad and Nandoi of the deceased; they are in no way interested in any dowry received by husband or family members of the deceased; they cannot be held as beneficiary of any demand of dowry, therefore, there was no occasion for them to travel to the place of deceased and husband and join her husband in demand of dowry; the revisionists are resident of Police Station Bhognipur, District Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) whereas deceased and her husband were residing at Kadaura, District Jalaun at Orai; the alleged incident occurred on 17.3.2021; deceased Deepa was hospitalized initially at Hallet hospital, Kanpur Nagar, thereafter, Sahara Hospital, Kanpur Nagar and subsequent at Priya hospital, Kanpur Nagar for treatment of serious injuries received in the incident and she ultimately died on 17.4.2021. No FIR regarding incident was lodged prior to death of the deceased within a period of one month, which intervened between date of incident and death of deceased, even after death of deceased, FIR was lodged on 28.5.2021 i.e. 01 month to 11 days after death of the deceased; this huge gap in unfortunate death of deceased and lodging of FIR, has afforded sufficient time to informant to engage in consultation with people before lodging of FIR with concocted facts and ulterior motive to victimize the husband and in-laws of the deceased. This is infact, outcome of afterthought.
7. She next submitted that medicolegal examination report of the deceased prepared at the Sahara hospital by doctor P.C. Gupta. It is stated that injured Deepa was aged 27 years, she was brought by Prabal Kumar (husband), who told that this was a case of self attempt for hanging on 17.4.2021 at about 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM; patient was unconscious, half open blinking eyes; abnormal body movement was present, mark of ligature present on neck of size 18cm X 2cm; side passing behind ear of 6cm x 6cm; side passing upto 10cm below the ear; patient was unconscious. In the opinion of the doctor, it was suicidal hanging; patient was kept under observation; RTI of patient has been attested.
8. She next submitted that the deceased was discharged in Lama condition from Priya hospital on 17.4.2021 by father and family members and Lama form was filled up by them, copy thereof is placed on record but unfortunately before shifting her from Priya hospital after discharge, she died there; her inquest was conducted by Nayab Tehsildar Sadar on 18.4.2021 at Priya hospital in which some Panch witnesses enjoined from accused side, their signatures were taken by inquest officer on blank paper and subsequently it was stated in column of opinion of Panch that according to opinion of Panch witnesses, deceased was strangulated by her husband, during treatment she died on 17.4.2021 and information in this regard was received at police station on 17.4.2021 at 21:00 hours. All column of Inquest report were filled up by inquest officer after taking signature of witnesses; it is quite natural that Panch witnesses of accused side would never agree to this opinion. She also submitted that in the post mortem of the deceased, no external or internal injury has been recorded; in internal examination, no abnormality has been detected in internal organs, underlying the neck, thus there is no basis to hold that this was a case of strangulation whereas medical opinion makes it evident that it was suicidal death. It is also relevant facts that death of the deceased had not occurred within short time of her marriage, which was performed on 10.3.2015; she died after 05 years of her marriage and the allegation of prosecution that during this period the deceased was subjected to cruelty due to non fulfillment of alleged demand of dowry, is unfounded.
9. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that learned trial court has summoned the married sister-in-law and her husband, who are residing elsewhere without recording its satisfaction about the strong prima facie case as envisaged by Hon?ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92. Learned trial court has not duly exercised its judicial mind while passing the impugned order. The impugned order is vitiated by illegality and deserves to be set aside.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA submitted that in FIR itself it is stated that the deceased had told her father and family members when she was admitted in the hospital through indication that her husband, sister-in-law (nanad) and brother-in-law (nandoi) had strangulated her. This fact is narrated by PW-1 and PW-2 in their sworn testimony before the court and there is no occasion to disbelieve the same at this stage when the trial is in progress. The impugned order is based on evidence on record and well reasoned and it need not be interfered in present revision. The complicity of the revisionists in causing of death is prompted by evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is established.
11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties in regard to the impugned order and grounds of revision and perused the evidence on record. The legal position for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the trial court is crystallized recently by Hon?ble Supreme Court in Constitution Bench judgement given in Hardeep Singh (supra). The extracts of said judgement, which are relevant for the purposes of present revision are cited in judgement of Supreme Court in Brijendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2017 SC 2839, as under:- 9. Powers of the Court to proceed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. even against those persons who are not arraigned as accused, cannot be disputed. This provision is meant to achieve the objective that real culprit should not get away unpunished. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92, explained the aforesaid purpose behind this provision in the following manner: ?8. The constitutional mandate under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India provides a protective umbrella for the smooth administration of justice making adequate provisions to ensure a fair and efficacious trial so that the accused does not get prejudiced after the law has been put into motion to try him for the offence but at the same time also gives equal protection to victims and to society at large to ensure that the guilty does not get away from the clutches of law. For the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the criminal administration of justice works properly, the law was appropriately codified and modified by the legislature under CrPC indicating as to how the courts should proceed in order to ultimately find out the truth so that an innocent does not get punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to book under the law. It is these ideals as enshrined under the Constitution and our laws that have led to several decisions, whereby innovating methods and progressive tools have been forged to find out the real truth and to ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished. xx xx xx 12. Section 319 CrPC springs out of the doctrine judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted) and this doctrine must be used as a beacon light while explaining the ambit and the spirit underlying the enactment of Section 319 CrPC. 13. It is the duty of the court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial. The question remains under what circumstances and at what stage should the court exercise its power as contemplated in Section 319 CrPC? xx xx xx 19. The court is the sole repository of justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore, it will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such powers with the courts in our criminal justice system where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at times, get away by manipulating the investigating and/or the prosecuting agency. The desire to avoid trial is so strong that an accused makes efforts at times to get himself absolved even at the stage of investigation or inquiry even though he may be connected with the commission of the offence.? It also goes without saying that Section 319 Cr.P.C., which is an enabling provision empowering the Court to take appropriate steps for proceeding against any person, not being an accused, can be exercised at any time after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of the judgment, except during the stage of Section 207/208 Cr.P.C., the committal etc., which is only a pre-trial stage intended to put the process into motion. In Hardeep Singh?s case, the Constitution Bench has also settled the controversy on the issue as to whether the word ?evidence? used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and indicates the evidence collected during investigation or the word ?evidence? is limited to the evidence recorded during trial. It is held that it is that material, after cognizance is taken by the Court, that is available to it while making an inquiry into or trying an offence, which the court can utilise or take into consideration for supporting reasons to summon any person on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court. The word ?evidence? has to be understood in its wider sense, both at the stage of trial and even at the stage of inquiry. It means that the power to proceed against any person after summoning him can be exercised on the basis of any such material as brought forth before it. At the same time, this Court cautioned that the duty and obligation of the Court becomes more onerous to invoke such powers consciously on such material after evidence has been led during trial. The Court also clarified that ?evidence? under Section 319 Cr.P.C. could even be examination-in-chief and the Court is not required to wait till such evidence is tested on cross-examination, as it is the satisfaction of the Court which can be gathered from the reasons recorded by the Court in respect of complicity of some other person(s) not facing trial in the offence. The moot question, however, is the degree of satisfaction that is required for invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the related question is as to in what situations this power should be exercised in respect of a person named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted. These two aspects were also specifically dealt with by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh?s case and answered in the following manner: ?95. At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 CrPC, though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Vikas v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 3 SCC 321] , held that on the objective satisfaction of the court a person may be ?arrested? or ?summoned?, as the circumstances of the case may require, if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the already arraigned accused persons. xx xx xx 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.
12. The provision of section 319 Cr.P.C. is meant to addition objective that real culprit should not get away unpunished. In subsequent judgement, Hon?ble Supreme Court placed reliance on above dictum issued in Hardeep Singh (supra) in the case of Bijendra Singh (supra), and observed as under: In order to answer the question, some of the principles enunciated in Hardeep Singh?s case may be recapitulated: Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial court at any stage during the trial, i.e., before the conclusion of trial, to summon any person as an accused and face the trial in the ongoing case, once the trial court finds that there is some ?evidence? against such a person on the basis of which evidence it can be gathered that he appears to be guilty of offence. The ?evidence? herein means the material that is brought before the Court during trial. Insofar as the material/evidence collected by the IO at the stage of inquiry is concerned, it can be utilised for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the Court to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. No doubt, such evidence that has surfaced in examination-in-chief, without cross- examination of witnesses, can also be taken into consideration. However, since it is a discretionary power given to the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and is also an extraordinary one, same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrants. The degree of satisfaction is more than the degree which is warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom chargesheet was filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity.
13. A perusal of record also reveals that even in the opinion of Panch witnesses in inquest report, it is stated that during the treatment; the deceased was strangulated by her husband due to which she died. As stated above, strong objection has been raised on behalf of revisionists regarding the opinion of Panch witnesses as some Panch witnesses belong to accused side.
14. A Full Bench of this Court in Queen Empress vs. Abdullah, (1885) ILR 7 All 385, held that dying declaration under section 32 of Evidence Act, may be made in reply to questions by signs and gestures where victim was not in position to speak and such question and signs taken together might properly be recorded as verbal statement made by a person as to the cause of her death within the meaning of section 32 of the Act and were therefore admissible in evidence under that Section. In that case, throat of victim was cut and for that reasons she was, at that time, unable to speak but was conscious and able to make signs.
15. In present case, although the informant has stated in FIR that victim had indicated by sign during course of her treatment at the hospital before father and her family members that her neck was pressed with intention to kill her by her husband, his sister and brother- in- law but this FIR itself has been lodged after around two and half months of the incident and after more than a month of her death at the hospital during course of her treatment. During this period, no effort was made either by police officials or doctor attending on the victim to record her statement by Magistrate or Doctor and thus, no blind reliance can be placed on FIR and subsequent testimony of informant and elder sister of the deceased as well before the court on this score. Medico legal examination report of the victim reveals that her death was suicidal and her neck injury resulted into suicidal hanging and it was told by her husband who brought her at the hospital that she herself attempted for hanging on 17.3.2021 at about 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM. In post mortem report also, cause of death could not be ascertained; no internal injury has been recorded under her neck and no abnormality was detected in Pharynx, Larynx, Vocal Chord or Trachea. The Investigating Officer exonerated the revisionists and some other named accused during investigation as he did not find their complicity. Even in statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of landlord Anuj Sachan or his family members; no allegation has been made against the revisionists in regard to alleged incident.
16. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that PW-1 Birendra Sachan, who is informant and father of the deceased and PW-2 Renu, sister of the deceased, have deposed against the revisionists during trial and on the basis of their evidence before the court, application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed, which was allowed by the trial court by the impugned order. PW-1 has stated that on 5.4.2021 at Priya hospital the victim had identified her husband, his sister Reena and brother-in-law Sunil, who were present there. The husband of his daughter killed her by engaging his sister and brother-in-law by pressing her neck. However, in FIR and statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., PW-1 has not stated that the deceased implicated the revisionists in their presence. However, totality of facts and circumstances of the case cannot be lost sight; the revisionists are not immediate family members of the husband of the deceased; they are married sister and brother-in-law of the husband, who are residing different district and place; they are not beneficiary of any demand of dowry as alleged.
17. Hon?ble Supreme Court in Manjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, (2021) 18 SCC 321 crystallized the law relating to Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of various judgement of Apex Court in following manner:- 15. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions on the scope and ambit of the powers of the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be summarized as under: 15.1. That while exercising the powers under Section 319 CrPC and to summon the persons not charge-sheeted, the entire effort is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence to get away unpunished; 15.2. for the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the criminal administration of justice works properly; 15.3. the law has been properly codified and modified by the legislature under the CrPC indicating as to how the courts should proceed to ultimately find out the truth so that the innocent does not get punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to book under the law; 15.4. to discharge duty of the court to find out the real truth and to ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished; 15.5. where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial; 15.6. Section 319 CrPC allows the court to proceed against any person who is not an accused in a case before it; 15.7. the court is the sole repository of justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore, it will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such powers with the courts in our criminal justice system where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at times, get away by manipulating the investigating and/or the prosecuting agency; 15.8. Section 319 CrPC is an enabling provision empowering the court to take appropriate steps for proceeding against any person not being an accused for also having committed the offence under trial; 15.9. the power under Section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised at any stage after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment, except during the stage of Sections 207/208 CrPC, committal, etc. which is only a pre- trial stage intended to put the process into motion; 15.10. the court can exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC only after the trial proceeds and commences with the recording of the evidence; 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; 15.12. it is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or the court to decide whether the power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during the investigation; 15.13. if the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief, it can exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC and can proceed against such other person(s); 15.14. that the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief, powers under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised; 15.15. that power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised even at the stage of completion of examination-in-chief and the court need not has to wait till the said evidence is tested on cross-examination; 15.16. even in a case where the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, the Court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319 CrPC and even those persons named in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet can be summoned to face the trial, provided during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused (may be in the form of examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses); 15.17. while exercising the powers under Section 319 CrPC the Court is not required and/or justified in appreciating the deposition/evidence of the prosecution witnesses on merits which is required to be done during the trial.
18. The Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning cannot be exercised on the ground that some evidence has come against the person, the evidence should be of such nature which would satisfy the court that the said person is involved in the crime. The Apex Court in Constitution Bench judgement in Hardeep Singh (supra) has given caution that power under section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extra ordinary power, which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where circumstances of the case so warrant and crucial test as noticed above 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.
19. In Bijendra Singh (supra) and Hardeep Singh (supra), Hon?ble Supreme Court distinguished between the degree of satisfaction is more than the degree which is warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom charge-sheet was filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity were the observation of Hon?ble Court.
20. On facts of present case on perusal of record and the impugned order it is held that there was no satisfaction before the learned trial court in invoking power under section 319 Cr.P.C. as envisaged by Hon?ble Court in Hardeep Singh (supra) and other subsequent judgement as cited as discussed above, therefore, summoning order is liable to be set aside with further direction in regard to hearing of application under section 319 Cr.P.C.
21. Consequently, the impugned summoning order passed against the revisionists by trial court in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below to decide it afresh in the light of law laid down by Hon?ble Supreme Court, as discussed above, after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides preferably within two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The trial court will be at liberty to take any evidence into consideration recorded after examination of PW-1 and PW-2.
22. The revision is allowed in terms of the above.
23. It is needless to say that above factual observations are made for the purpose of disposal of present revision and they will have no bearing on disposal of the concerned criminal case on merits.
(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)
September 8, 2025
Dhirendra/
