The court confirmed that prima facie evidence is sufficient for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, even if not tested in cross-examination.

JUDGMENT :

NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 28.5.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi in S.T. No. 960 of 2022 ( State Vs. Sunil Tiwari and others ) arising out of Case Crime No. 85 of 2022 under sections 147, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Punchha, District Jhansi whereby the Application 33-B under section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the prosecution was allowed and the revisionists were summoned to face trial for the said offences.

2. Heard Shri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Phool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Shri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The brief facts of the case, as unfolded in the F.I.R., are as follows :

On 9.5.2022 at about 9.00 p.m. Dipendra Yadav @ Deepu, brother of the informant, had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of Lokendra Singh Yadav's nephew to village Madora Khurd and a quarrel started there between Lokendra Singh Yadav, Amit Tiwari, Anuj and Deepu and thereafter, Chandra Shekhar Tiwari, Lokendra Singh Yadav, Amit Tiwari, Anuj Pandey, Sanchit Yadav, Sunil Tiwari tied his brother to a pillar of Chandra Shekhar Tiwari's verandah and he was beaten by them. When brother of the informant did not return home till evening, he was searched for but not found anywhere and the above mentioned people kidnapped him and made him disappear. On 10.5.2022 at 11.30 a.m. his body was found hanging on a tree at a deserted place on the highway, which was hung after committing his murder by the said accused persons. The incident was witnessed by Avadhesh Yadav. F.I.R. was lodged on 12.5.2022 at 11.35 a.m. under Sections 147, 302, 201 IPC.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that although the present revisionists were named accused in the F.I.R. but the Investigating Officer of this case found absolutely no evidence disclosing their involvement during investigation hence they were exonerated by the Investigating Officer, however charge sheet was submitted only against the accused Sunil Tiwari.

5. Further argument is that the story set up by the prosecution is false and fabricated. The informant/PW-1 is not an eye witness of the occurrence and some major contradictions are clearly visible in his statement in examination-in-chief and cross-examination which makes his deposition inconsistent and unreliable. It is also submitted that it is explicitly clear from the record that the I.O. of this case found absolutely no evidence against the present revisionists and that was the reason they were exonerated and no charge sheet was submitted against them.

6. Another limb of the argument is that the PW-1 and PW-2 have made relevant improvements in their deposition recorded before the Court. The present revisionists are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this matter. They were not present on the spot at the time of the incident. It is further submitted that though it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the deceased was assaulted by the accused persons but no injury is found on his body in the post mortem report and the cause of death was found asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation.

7. It is also urged that the trial court must have taken into account the statements recorded by the I.O. and materials collected by him during investigation. Hence, the trial court on the basis of shaky and inconsistent oral testimony of the witnesses, which is full of material contradictions, passed an arbitrary and illegal order to summon the revisionists to face trial under Sections 147, 302, 201 IPC which suffers from infirmity and perversity warranting interference by this Court.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 / informant vehemently opposed the prayer and it has been submitted that the present revisionists were named in the F.I.R. of this case and role of assault has also been attributed to them. However, some witnesses were won o