HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2912 of 2025 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 and 3. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist-Amar Singh against the order dated 1.3.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Hathras in Case No.406 of 2015 (State vs. Jugendra Singh and another) under Sections 323, 504, 306 IPC, Police Station-Sadabad, District-Hathras. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist had filed an application 47-kha under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which has been rejected on 1.3.2025. The ground taken by revisionist in the said application is that witness Yogendra is an important witness. PW-1 has specified the relation of Yogendra in his statement whereas the statement of PW-1 is not filed by the revisionist. 4. The trial court has specified in the order that the statement of PW- 1/complainant was recorded on 17.10.2016. The said application has been filed after nine years on 22.1.2025. PW-1 has deposed in his statement that his son has demanded money to send the wife of his son. The complainant had two sons, who has committed the altercation which is not specified by the complainant/PW-1 in his statement. Hence, the application was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 has specifically stated that Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mohd. Ayub Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sanjay Kumar Dubey Amar Singh .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the alleged dying-declaration is merely a photocopy and no original document is filed before the trial court. The entire evidence, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the statement of defence are already completed. The revisionist/accused is deliberately and willfully trying to cause delay in the decision. 6. After consideration of the submission made by both the parties, firstly the revisionist did not file the statement of PW-1 in support of his application, whereas the learned trial court has specifically detailed about the statement of PW-1 in the impugned order dated 1.3.2025. He specifically draws the inference that the complainant/PW-1 is having two sons, who has called and committed altercation. This averment is not stated in the statement of the complainant. 7. The evidences of the prosecution, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence evidence are already completed and the case is fixed for final argument. Yogendra is not appeared to be fruitful for proper adjudication of the trial. 8. In view thereof, there is neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the impugned order dated 1.3.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Hathras in Case No.406 of 2015 (State vs. Jugendra Singh and another) under Sections 323, 504, 306 IPC, Police Station-Sadabad, District-Hathras. The revision is liable to be dismissed. 9. It is dismissed, accordingly. October 30, 2025 LN Tripathi CRLR No. 2912 of 2025 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad