1

Court No. - 88

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4506 of 2022

Revisionist :- Shiv Shankar

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Revisionist :- Balram Mishra

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State

and perused the entire record.

2.

The present criminal revision has been preferred against the

judgement and order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST

Act), Sant Kabir Nagar in special session trial no. 486 of 2021, arising out of

Case Crime No. 571 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B, 316, 120B I.P.C.

and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir

Nagar, whereby application filed by the revisionist under Section 319

Cr.P.C. for summoning the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, to face the trial under

the aforesaid offences, has been rejected.

3.

According to prosecution version, the sister of complainant-revisionist

was married with co-accused Guddu Nishad about three years prior to the

incident. On 16.09.2020 at about 12.00 noon, complainant-revisionist was

informed that his sister has hanged herself. Thereafter complainant-

revisionist reached there and found that deceased was lying dead and there

were injuries on her body. The first information report was registered on

17.09.2020 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act

against accused persons. During investigation, opposite party nos. 2 and 3,

who are unmarried sisters-in-law of deceased, were exonerated and charge-

sheet was filed against co-accused Guddu Nishad (husband) and Neelam

(Aunt of the husband of deceased). Co-accused Ram Dasi Devi, who is

mother-in-law of deceased, has passed away during investigation. During

trial, complainant-revisionist has moved an application under Section 319

Cr.P.C. for summoning of opposite party nos. 2 and 3, namely, Manita and

Saroj as accused for trial along with accused persons and that application

came to be rejected by the trial court vide impugned order dated 21.09.2022.

2

4.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite

party nos. 2 and 3, who are unmarried sisters-in-law of deceased, were

named in the first information report. It was stated that during trial, PW-1

Shiv Shanker (complainant-revisionist) has clearly stated that his sister

(deceased) was being harassed by all the accused persons including opposite

party nos. 2 and 3, namely, Manita and Saroj, on account of dowry. He has

also stated that in fact his sister was murdered and thereafter she was shown

hanged and in this connection learned counsel has referred the observations

made by the Investigating Officer. It was further stated that opposite party

nos. 2 and 3 were actively involved in harassment and causing death of

deceased and thus, trial court has committed error by rejecting the

application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant-revisionist.

5.

Learned A.G.A. for the State has argued that though during

investigation, opposite party nos. 2 and 3, namely, Manita and Saroj were

exonerated but PW-1 Shiv Shanker, who is complainant of the case, has

made allegations against them, in his statement.

6.

Before considering the merits of the contentions, it is necessary to

refer to Section 319 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-

“319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears

from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any

offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court

may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have

committed.

(2) …………………..

(3) …………………..

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then-

(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the

wi