HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1832 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party nos 2 to 4 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 05.03.2024, by which the application dated 15.02.2024, moved by the revisionist for summoning the prospective accused persons has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that, there was sufficient evidence to summon the prospective accused persons, but the learned trial court, without going into the entire evidence available at the relevant point of time, rejected the said application. Learned counsel laid emphasis on the statement of the daughter of the deceased i.e. PW-2 in which the said witness has categorically stated the involvement of prospective accused persons, besides the other accused persons involved in the case crime. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer dropped the name of three persons-opposite party nos.2 to 4 and charge sheet was filed in respect of other three accused persons. It is the matter of record that during pendency of this revision, the final judgment has been passed in the said Case Crime No.248 of 2021, under Sections 147, 326 and 302/34 IPC and other three accused persons have been convicted of the said offence in the relevant sections. Learned counsel further laid emphasis that the nature of evidence on the basis of which, the other three accused have been convicted is one of the same, but the three prospective accused persons i.e. opposite party nos.2 to 4 were dropped at the time of Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ambreesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Amit Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) filing of the charge sheet and further submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Auraiya is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 to 4 submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is in accordance with law and based on evidence that was available before the trial court. He further submitted that except PW-2 i.e. daughter of the deceased, no other witness was the eye witness of the incident. Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased died in the hospital about 5 ½ hours after the deceased was set at fire and was referred to Safai hospital at Etawah. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that some journalist (Patrakar) was available, who has recorded the statement of the deceased in Sadar hospital, Sahar, but the said generalist was not produced as witness, who would have been important witness supporting the statement in the form of dying declaration of the deceased, but for the reason best known to either of the parties, the said witness was not at all produced during the trial. He further submitted that the treatment was given by the doctors and doctor was available in the hospital, but no such statement of dying declaration was recorded at the relevant point of time, when the deceased was alive. He further submitted that, as far as the statement of PW-2 is concerned, the statement appears to be tutored at one point or the other. He further submitted that the deceased died at some other place from her own house and there are variations as far as total incident is concerned and based on the said fact, the Investigating Officer dropped the name of three prospective accused, opposite party nos.2 to 4. He further submitted that the entire trial cannot be repeated as three accused persons have already been convicted of the offence under the said case crime and prayed that the present revision be dismissed. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the facts that three accused persons have already been convicted and trial has come to an end. Moreover, the very important witness, the said journalist (Patrakar), who has recorded the statement of the deceased was not produced as a witness, who has supported the case of the prosecution and the said statement CRLR No. 1832 of 2024 2 would have been treated as dying declaration but that was not done at all. Moreover, any of the doctors failed to record the statement of the deceased prior to her death, as she was alive for more than 5 hours. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, District Auraiya appears to be just and proper. No interference is required by this Court. Needless to say that it is not necessary, that the witnesses, those have already been examined and are going to be examined afresh, then all are likely to be deposed in the same manner, as earlier. 7. The present revision is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 18, 2025 Mini- CRLR No. 1832 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad