“Trial Court Acted in a ‘Mechanical Manner’: High Court Challenges Summoning of Revisionists Under Section 319 Cr.P.C.”

August 26, 2023

171

advocate judicial party RPF Advocates live Mother SARFAESI steel v Departmental properly Evidence Divorce Property Factual Bail FIR 376 Bail bail Child Allahabad High Cour 1989 Appointment Investigation Cheque Fear mother IIIT court Law application Acquittal 29A Marriage Maintenance Dowry Application dowryMarriage bail Land Earning Justice Written Statement Maintenance Summoning Rape Video Death Bail Guilty jurisdiction 138Assault investigation Temple bail Wife velectricity Child Drinking final murder Love Cheque Throwing Brick Husband NDPS Case allahabad addition preliminary evidence Cheque Bounce murder evidence grievances dowry 210 consideration order corporation advocate certificate marriage application mechanical maintenance financial evidence electricity wife probation bail individual investigation

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, presided over by Judge Shiv Shanker Prasad, has questioned the trial court’s decision to summon the revisionists under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The judgment, dated August 24, 2023, states that the trial court allegedly did not consider all available material and acted in a “mechanical manner.”

The case stems from an incident that occurred on May 24, 2014, where Neeraj was shot dead. The FIR was lodged by Dinesh Kumar Singh against Krishnapal, Vikash, and Praveen. Krishnapal and Vikash, the revisionists, were summoned by the trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. They filed this criminal revision to set aside the judgment, claiming they were falsely implicated and have an alibi supported by witnesses and Call Detail Reports (CDRs).

The High Court observed that the revisionists argue they were in Village Kirthal, District Baghpat, at the time of the incident, about 100 km away from the crime scene. This alibi is supported by witnesses and CDRs. The court also noted the opposite party’s contention that the Investigating Officer was biased and manipulated statements to favor the revisionists. “The opposite party also argues that the CDRs and mobile locations are not sufficient to establish an alibi,” the judgment reads.

The High Court has challenged the trial court’s decision, stating it did not consider all available material and acted arbitrarily. “The trial court’s decision to summon the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is being challenged as it allegedly did not consider all available material and acted in a ‘mechanical manner’,” the judgment notes.

The judgment has cited various cases, including Hardeep Singh’s case and Brijendra Singh’s case, to underline the importance of considering all evidence before summoning an individual under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It also raises questions about the role of the Investigating Officer and the validity of CDRs as evidence.

D.D-August 25, 2023

Krishnapal And Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Download Judgment