HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5699 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of opp. party no. 2, even on revised call. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 23.08.2024, by which the revisionist has been summoned as a prospective accused in Case Crime No. 370 of 2021, under Section 302, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the present incident as alleged was mere an accident and not the incident caused by the accused persons or the revisionist herein. It has further been submitted that as per the statements of four witnesses, who were examined, there are variations and contradictions at large in the testimonies of those four witnesses. Referring to the statement of p.w.-4 Shiv Narayan, who is uncle of the deceased, has initially stated that there was no rivalry of any nature whatsoever, but later stage, he has admitted that there was some rivalry between the parties and for that reason, p.w.-4 was behind the bar for about two months and the matter was finally settled. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that, out of four persons, who are said to be the eye witnesses of the incident, only two witnesses namely, p.w.-2 Ankit and p.w.-3 Sankit have been examined. Two other witness namely, Anand and Ram Janki were not produced as Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Neha Kumari, Shashi Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Kumar Verma, G.A. Akhilesh @ Nunnan .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) prosecution witnesses, who were also eye witnesses of the said incident and one of the witnesses namely, Shyam Sri, who was present, has not yet been examined, who is the important witness of the incident. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has submitted that about four witnesses have been examined and on the basis of testimony of those four witnesses, the revisionist has been summoned, as trial court has found sufficient material against him. It has further been submitted that the said incident took place in an agricultural field and there was no reason, that the motorcycle of the deceased has gone inside the said field. It has further been submitted that as per the post mortem report, the cause of death of the deceased is found ante-mortem injuries caused by hard and blunt object. So far as other witness, Shyam Sri is concerned, her testimony is yet to be examined. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the matter is under trial, wherein four witnesses have been examined. There are 14 witnesses, it cannot be imagined that as to how and in what manner, the remaining witnesses shall adduce the evidence. However, at this stage, since four witnesses have been examined and sufficient material has been found against the revisionist herein, no infirmity can be found in summoning the prospective accused person, the revisionist herein. 6. In view of the above, I an not inclined to interfere with the order dated 23.08.2024 passed by 1st, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Case No. 1416 of 2021, under Sections 302, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police Station shivali, District Kanpur Dehat. The revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. It is, accordingly, dismissed. September 18, 2025 Gss CRLR No. 5699 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad