Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16811 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 330 of 2025 Revisionist :- Ram Prasad Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Revisionist :- Kaushal Kishore Tewari,Shakti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Kaushal Kishore Tewari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By means of the present criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., the revisionist has assailed the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1st Unnao in S.T. No. 216/2015 wherein the application preferred by under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning of the defence witness has been rejected. 3. The brief facts as stated by learned counsel for revisionist are that on 17.01.2013 a first information report was lodged by the complainant against the revisionist and 4 other accused in Case Crime No. 59/2013, U/S 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao. According to the first information report, it was alleged that the revisionist along with other accused persons have assailed with lathi, danda and later on hanged on the mango tree, as a result of which he had died. 4. The investigation was concluded and a charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist and four other accused. The evidence of the parties have concluded and the case is being listed for final hearing. At this stage, revisionist had moved an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking to summon the wife of the deceased on the ground that she has moved an application for grant of compensation under the Farmers Accident Welfare Scheme under which policy in case there is an unfortunate or an accidental death of any farmer and that he is the sole bread earner of the farmer a sum of Rs. 5 lakh was granted by the State and the said amount was credited to the wife of the deceased on 10.05.2014 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that they wanted to demonstrate that in case the deceased has died due to accidental death when the implication of the application in the said case is false. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that previously also an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected on 13.02.2024 and when the matter was listed for final hearing, the trial court was of the view that only in order to delay and procrastinate the trial the said application has been given and accordingly the application has been rejected. 6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the revision. He has submitted that even if the version of the revisionist is found to be correct under the Farmers Accident Welfare Scheme, compensation is paid for an unnatural death. There is no provision in the said scheme that the said scheme has excluded any person who has been murdered. Even in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the family of the deceased was dis-entitled from receiving compensation. Accordingly, he submits that the application was given only to delay the trial after conclusion of the evidence and there is no infirmity in the order of the trial court rejecting the said application. 7. I have heard rival contention and persued the record. The facts in the case are not disputed inasmuch as the revisionist and four other persons are accused in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 2015 (State Vs. Ram Prasad and others). The incident relates to 17.01.2013 and even the trial is in progress since nearly 10 years and it is after the said period of time the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist. It has further been noticed that even the amount of compensation given to the wife of the deceased was paid on 10.07.2014. In the said application, it has merely been stated that it is now the revisionist has come to know about the payment of the said compensation and has preferred the said application. 8. Apart from the above, this Court has also examined the scheme of the government under the Farmers Accident Welfare Scheme and finds that compensation is given to a farmer who dies in an accident or an unnatural death. There is no exclusion that in case a person is murdered, he would be excluded for payment of the compensation under the aforesaid scheme. The only reason that application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was preferred by the revisionist was to demonstrate that the deceased was not murdered and had died due to an accident. Merely because the compensation has been granted rightly or wrongly by the State Government under the Farmers Accident Welfare Scheme will not be conclusive or demonstrative of the fact that the deceased had died during an accident. 9. From the perusal of the scheme, only the cause of death is looked into and if the claim falls within the four corners of the policy the payment of compensation was granted. There is no finding on the determination with regard to cause of death. Accordingly apart from the fact that there is an unreasonable delay after examining the policy as well as grounds taken by the revisionist. This Court finds that the same has been moved only to procrastinate the trial and summoning of the documents as sought by the revisionist would in any case not serve the purpose or even the evidence sought by them . 10. In light of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 accordingly, the revision is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 25.3.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench