HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3694 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Additional Special Judge P.O.C.S.O. Court No. 1, Firozabad. By the said order dated 30.04.2024, the application of the revisionist filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that, there is sufficient evidence against the prospective accused, as far as the testimony of p.w.1, p.w.-2 and p.w.-3 is concerned, however, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been dismissed without going into the entirety of the facts and corroboration of the evidence of witnesses. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that there is some video clip in which the name of the accused persons have been disclosed, but it is not clear as to whether the said video clip is available as on date or was ever supplied to the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that the said application has been dismissed on the basis of testimony of the witnesses, which is based on hearsay evidence and they are not the eye witnesses of the incident. So the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the order impugned has been passed in accordance with law as the learned trial court has well Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dharmendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vinod Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) considered the testimony of all the three witnesses i.e. p.w.-1, p.w.-2 and p.w.-3. It has further been submitted by the learned A.G.A. that, it is a matter of record, that the witnesses have deposed on the basis of hearsay and they are not the eye witnesses. So far as the video clip is concerned, it was never made a part of the case diary and it was never received by the Investigating Officer, for the reason best known to the informant or the Investigating Officer. 5. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Additional Special Judge P.O.C.S.O. Court No. 1, Firozabad, I am of the opinion that the said order is passed in accordance with law, based on fair examination of the testimony of p.w.-1, p.w.-2 and p.w.-3, as p.w.-2 those have stated that, they have not seen anyone accompanied with the deceased and further p.w.-3 has stated that the deceased, while he was conscious has stated that he was assaulted by three persons namely Anil, Anuj and Mohit along with another person. Once the statement of the deceased is available, recorded, prior to her death, the same cannot be disbelieved. 6. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Additional Special Judge POCSO Court No. 1, Firozabad. The revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. October 6, 2025 Gss CRLR No. 3694 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad