HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2787 of 2025 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Mishra and Mr. Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. S.R. Verma and Mr. Deepak Kumar Verma, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. 2. The revisionist, Santosh Singh, has approached this Court by means of the present criminal revision challenging the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Court no. 2, Fatehpur (herein after referred as to "Trial Court) whereby in S.T. No. 15 of 2018 (State VS. Manna Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 261 of 2016, under Sections 302, 504 and 436 IPC, P.S. Chandpur, District Fatehpur the revisionist has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial along with other co-accused. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal revision has been filed on the ground that the impugned order is against law and has been passed without application of judicial mind. Elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel for revisionist has drawn the attention of the court to the impugned order, which is based on statements accrued at pages 18-20 of the paper book, considered by the trial court. P.W. 1 has stated that firing was done from the distance of 100 meters using a licensed gun, whereas the effective range of a licensed gun is not more than 50 meters. Similar statement has been given by P.W.2, which do not appear to be credible. From the statements of these occular witnesses their presence itself becomes doubtful. Apart from this, even these two Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Abhishek Srivastava, Akhilesh Kumar, Rajesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Kumar Verma, G.A. Santosh Singh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) two eye witnesses have assigned no specific role to the revisionist and urged that there is no credible evidence against the revisionist to show any possibility of conviction. It is thus contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this court. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 have vehemently opposed the criminal revision but could not over come the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for revisionist regarding the range of firing of the licensed gun. 5. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the statements on record, which clearly support the case of the revisionist and could not be effectively rebutted by the opposite side, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be dismissed and the present revision is liable to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. 7. The trial court is directed to pass order a fresh after due appreciation of evidence on record in light of judgment of Apex Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014)3 SCC 92. 8. It is made clear that any observation made in he judgment shall not come in the way of trail pending against accused other then revisionist before the trial court. May 6, 2026 RPD CRLR No. 2787 of 2025 2 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad