SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 510

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.
Arunendra Alias Daddu Yadav - Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No. 5924 of 2023
Decided On : 05-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Revisionist : Nipun Singh, Vivek Chaturvedi
For the Opposite Party : Kunjesh Kumar Dubey

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of strong and cogent evidence for invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and held that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was maintainable and entertained by the trial court.

Headnote:

Criminal Revision - Summoning of Accused - Cr.P.C - 307/419, 436/149, 323/149 - The court discussed the maintainability of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the degree of satisfaction required for invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court found that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was maintainable and entertained by the trial court. It also held that there was strong and cogent evidence against the revisionist, which was sufficient for framing of charge. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was found to be in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant alleged that her house was attacked and looted by a group of accused persons, including the revisionist, under the leadership of a local MLA. The complainant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction to lodge F.I.R. The trial court allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the revisionist to face trial.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was maintainable and entertained by the trial court. It also held that there was strong and cogent evidence against the revisionist, which was sufficient for framing of charge.

Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the degree of satisfaction required for invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was maintainable and entertained by the trial court. It also found that there was strong and cogent evidence against the revisionist, which was sufficient for framing of charge.

Final Decision: The Criminal Revision was rejected as it was found to be bereft of merit.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant Criminal Revision under Section 379/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred as "Cr.P.C" has been preferred by the revisionist-Arunendra alias Daddu Yadav with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge MP/MLA Court, Prayagraj in Complaint Case No. 2390 of 2010 (UPAD01-007721-2010), under Sections 307/419, 436/149, 323/149 I.P.C., Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj, whereby application No. 171 kha dated 17.10.2023 moved by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed and revisionist-Arunendra alias Daddu Yadav was summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 307/419, 436/149, and 323/149 I.P.C.

2. Heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. J.K. Upadhyay, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Ms. Pratiksha Rai, learned Brief Holder for the State of U.P./opposite party No. 1, Mr. Kunjesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the materials on record.

3. Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are as follow:-

3.1. The complainant/opposite party no. 2-Shashi Devi moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 08.07.2005 in respect of incidents dated 29.06.2005 and 30.06.2005 against eleven accused persons, namely, Moolchandra Yadav, Smt. Vijma Yadav (MLA), Raju Yadav, Ashok Nishad, Loha Singh, Amar Singh, Gyan Chandra, Lal Chandra, Jabar Singh, Padmakar Rai-Sub-Inspector, Police Station Jhunsi, Allahabad and Raju seeking direction to lodge F.I.R. in the matter for the offence under Sections 395, 397, 436, 323, 504, 506, 364 I.P.C. alleging inter alia that Mohan Lal Yadav of her village was murdered by some unknown persons on 29.06.2005 in the morning. Angered by this murder, deceased’s brother Moolchandra Yadav, Smt. Vijma Yadav (MLA), Raju Yadav, Gyan Chandra Yadav, Amar Singh Yadav, Ashok Nishad, Loha Singh, Jabar Singh, Raju, Lal Chand and 10-20 unknown persons barged into her house and started beating women, children and her brother-in-laws Raj Kumar and Awadhesh. Raj Kumar and Awadhesh got scared and ran away from the village. Then on the exhortation of Smt. Vijma Yadav, MLA, Moolchandra and other accused persons looted the ornaments, clothes and licensed rifles and cartridges of her brother-in-law Raj Kumar Yadav and her husband Ashok Kumar Yadav kept in house and set the house on fire, as a result thereof about 140 bags of grains and household items kept in the house were burnt to ashes. The accused persons also burnt the tractor parked in front of her house. It is further alleged in paragraph no. 4 of the application that on the next day, on 30.06.2005 under the leadership of Smt. Vijma Yadav, MLA, again Moolchandra Yadav, Arunendra @ Daddu Yadav (revisionist), Gyan Chandra Yadav, Jabar Singh, Amar Singh, Raju Yadav, Raju son of Tulsiram, Ashok Nishad, Lalchand and 15-20 persons came and opened fire with the rifles which they had looted from her house and weapons they had brought with them and barged into her house by breaking the doors and started beating her and her children. When she protested, then Vijma Yadav, MLA exhorted the persons who had come with her to set the house on fire and she herself by pouring kerosene set the bed on fire and started pushing the children towards fire. When she protested, then Padmakar Rai-Sub-Inspector, Police Station Jhunsi, Allahabad, who was present at the spot after beating and abusing her directed the constables to put her on police vehicle. Thereafter constables took her to the police station. In the police station also she was beaten. Her tent house and home were set on fire. In the application, it is also stated that police of concerned police station is not taking any action against the accused persons under the pressure and in collusion with Smt. Vijma Yadav (local MLA).

3.2. Learned Ma

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top