HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1883 of 2024 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 890 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. The above both criminal revisions are being heard together and decided by a common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present revisions have been filed against the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jalaun at Orai, in respect of Case Crime No. 152 of 2020, S.T.No. 106 of 2021 (State Vs. Preetam Kushwaha), Police Station Kaila, District Jalaun by which the revisionists have been summoned to face trial under Section Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Vaibhav Shandilya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijay Singh Sengar Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sr. Advocate, Vaibhav Shandilya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Nitinjay Pandey, Vijay Singh Sengar Mahaveer Saran @ Ramu And Another .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Manvendra Singh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 302/34 I.P.C. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the learned Sessions Court, after going through the evidence of p.w.-1 and p.w.-2 namely Satendra and Varun Pratap had reached at the conclusion that the evidence against the prospective accused persons is sufficient, and has summoned them on the basis of testimony of only two witnesses. It has further been contended that there being other witnesses also in the said case crime, the evidence of only two witnesses is not sufficient to summon the prospective accused persons, the revisionists herein and the impugned order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 submitted that the testimony of p.w.-1 and p.w.-2 reveals that there is sufficient evidence against the revisionists and both the witnesses have categorically stated that the prospective accused persons namely Manvendra Singh, revisionist in Cr. Revision no. 890 of 2024 and Mahaveer Saran @ Ramu along with Devendra Singh, the present revisionists have committed the crime. It has further been submitted that as far as testimony of above two witnesses is concerned, the same is intact and nowhere it has been stated that some persons other than the accused were involved in the crime and only these three persons are responsible for committing the offence. 6. Learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 has further submitted that another person namely Preetam Kushwaha has been arrayed as an accused in the charge sheet filed by the police and the name of three persons have been dropped in the chargsheet filed by the police. It has further been submitted that, the investigation carried out by the police is in accordance with law and having been found sufficient evidence against Preetam Singh, he has been implicated and arrayed as an accused in the said charge-sheet. Since no credible evidence was found in respect of all three accused persons, the Investigating Officer has dropped their names from the charge sheet. 7. Learned counsel for opp.party no. 2 has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore and another CRLR No. 1883 of 2024 2 Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (2025) 2 SCC 621. 8. Having regard to the fact that the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1,Jalaun at Orai is based on the testimony of only two persons whereas other witnesses of fact are yet to be examined. Since, sufficient evidence/material is not available, though the evidence of p.w.-1 and p.w.-2 can not been discarded at this stage. 9. However, keeping in view of the fact that the other witnesses of fact, as per charge-sheet, i.e. p.w.-5, p.w.-6, p.w.-8, p.w.-13, p.w.-14, p.w.-15 and p.w.-16 are also the witness of fact in said crime, who are yet to be examined. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionists also relied upon the judgment of paragraph no. 13 of the aforesaid judgment (supra), which is given below:- "13. The test as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court for invoking the powers under Section 319 CrPC inter alia includes the principle that only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence the power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised. The power cannot be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. The test to be applied, as laid down by this Court, is one which is more than prima facie which is applied at the time of framing of charges. It will all depend upon the evidence which is tendered in a given case as to whether there is a strong ground within the meaning of para 105 of Hardeep Singh (supra) referred to above." 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1,Jalaun at Orai, in respect of Case Crime No. 152 of 2020, S.T.No. 106 of 2021 (State Vs. Preetam Kushwaha), Police Station Kaila, District Jalaun is set aside. 12. However, no opinion has been expressed regarding testimony of p.w.- 1 and p.w.-2, who have already been examined. But once the evidence of other witnesses is completed, it shall remain open for the respondents/ opp. parties to take legal recourse under Section 319 Cr.P.C. CRLR No. 1883 of 2024 3 13. Accordingly, the both revisions are disposed of. September 22, 2025 Gss CRLR No. 1883 of 2024 4 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad