HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4302 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Mahesh Kumar Dubey & Sri Atul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 5 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the Session Judge, Aligarh in Session Trial No.1844 of 2023 (State Vs. Pradeep Kaushik) arising out of case crime no.59 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC, Police Station Khair, District Aligarh whereby the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist / informant - Ram Prakash Dixit to summon the opposite parties no.2 to 5 as co-accused was rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged by the revisionist / informant under section 498-A, 302 IPC in respect of demand of dowry and murder of her daughter Sangeeta against accused Vishnu Swaroop Kaushik (father-in-law), Indra Kaushik (mother-in-law), Prabhat Kaushik @ Neeraj (jeth), Renu Kaushik (jethani) and Pradeep Kaushik (husband) alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals on 21.4.2024 at Aligarh with Pradeep Kaushik and he spent around 14 lacs in her marriage but her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and used to demand additional dowry of Rs.5 lacs. The informant anyhow managed to fulfill their demand but inspite of that they were not happy and on 26.1.2023 all the accused persons with common object poured diesel upon Sangeeta and her two daughters Anjali and Anshika and set them ablaze. Sangeeta died due to burn injuries whereas her daughters received serious burn injuries and were admitted into the hospital. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Pramod Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Atul Kumar Singh, G.A., Mahesh Kumar Dubey Ram Prakash Dixit .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. After lodging of the F.I.R., the investigating officer started investigation and on completion of the same he submitted the charge-sheet only against accused Pradeep Kaushik under sections 498-A, 306 IPC and final report was submitted by him against other accused persons. The learned trial court took cognizance in the matter and the trial proceeded. 5. After recording the statement of P.W.2, the revisionist filed an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the other co-accused persons who were named in the F.I.R. and were present at the time of incident but the learned trial court after considering the evidence and other materials brought on record, rejected the application moved by the informant / revisionist. Hence, this revision. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law and it has been passed by the learned trial court without properly considering the evidence available on record. It is further submitted that although the F.I.R. of this case was lodged under section 302 IPC but the investigating officer in an arbitrary manner without any plausible reason deleted section 302 IPC during investigation and charge- sheet was submitted under sections 498-A, 306 IPC and except Pradeep Kaushik, the husband of the deceased, all the other accused persons were exonerated by the investigating officer and no charge-sheet has been submitted against them. It is further submitted that there is relevant and consistent evidence on record that Sangeeta (deceased), the daughter of the informant was burnt by all the accused persons after pouring diesel upon her body. It is further submitted that on the basis of positive statements made by the informant and particularly Km. Palak @ Anshika and Mehak @ Anjali, the minor daughters of the deceased Sangeeta, a clear case was made out under section 302 IPC against all the accused persons including Pradeep Kaushik, the husband of the deceased, and ocular version of the incident has been narrated by Km. Palak @ Anshika and Mehak @ Anjali in their deposition before the court. It is further submitted that the accused Pradeep Kaushik and his family members, who have been falsely implicated in this case, took the injured persons to the hospital for immediate treatment, but however, the investigating officer for the reason best known to him exonerated the name of the in-laws of the deceased except her husband Pradeep Kaushik. It is further submitted that both the daughters of the deceased are minor girls of tender age and they were living in their maternal family when they were brought to record their evidence before the court and CRLR No. 4302 of 2025 2 the statements given by them are the product of tutoring by their maternal side. The learned Session Judge also committed error in rejecting the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the informant / revisionist. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State have submitted that the trial court after considering the evidence of P.W.-2 has rightly passed the impugned order. From the evidence of P.W.-2 the involvement of opposite party nos.2 to 5 in the incident was not established. It is further submitted that opposite party nos.2 to 5, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, jeth and jethani of deceased were named in the F.I.R. but during investigation the Investigating Officer has not found any reliable evidence against them, therefore, he had not submitted the charge-sheet against them but submitted final report qua them. It is further submitted that P.W.-1 is the father of the deceased and also interested witness and his evidence was not reliable. It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that the entire facts and circumstances of the case had been properly considered by the trial court while rejecting the application of P.W.- 1/revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Lastly, it is submitted that the trial court after prima-facie satisfaction that the involvement of opposite party nos.2 to 5 are not established from the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.2, has rightly rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the informant / revisionist. 8. I have considered the rival contentions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 9. Before proceeding further, it would be desirable to quote the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C., which may be read as follows : "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. CRLR No. 4302 of 2025 3 (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses re- heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced." 10. Thus, from the aforesaid provision it is apparent that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial court at any stage during trial to summon any person as an accused to face the trial if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with other accused. 11. In the instant matter, the minor daughters of the deceased Km. Palak @ Anshika and Km. Mehak @ Anjali were interrogated by the investigating officer and subsequently Km. Palak @ Anshika was also appeared as P.W.2 before the court, who deposes that all the five accused persons poured oil upon the deceased in her room and she was set ablaze by them, particularly by Renu Kaushik, the sister-in-law (jethani) of the deceased. At this stage, the Court takes notice of this fact that another minor daughter of the deceased, who is also said to be the eyewitness of the incident, has not been examined so far before the trial court and in passing the impugned order, the learned trial court has considered the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of other minor daughter of the deceased and eyewitness of the case Km. Mehak @ Anjali. In my view, the learned trial court ought to have waited for some more time to dispose of the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. at least till the deposition of Km. Mehak @ Anjali is recorded. 12. The learned Sessions Judge opined that there are material contradictions in the statement of both the minor daughters of the deceased. It is an established law that if the material witnesses of any incident make statement contradictory to each other affecting the merits of the case, the accused is always entitled for benefit of doubt and the same can be found in the light of statement made by Km. Palak @ Anshika and Km. Mehak @ Anjali. CRLR No. 4302 of 2025 4 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable at this stage of the matter. The present criminal revision deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set-aside at this stage. 14. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the Session Judge, Aligarh in Session Trial No.1844 of 2023 (State Vs. Pradeep Kaushik) arising out of case crime no.59 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC, Police Station Khair, District Aligarh is set- aside and the learned trial court is directed to pass a fresh order under section 319 Cr.P.C. after recording the evidence of Km. Mehak @ Anjali, the eyewitness / minor daughter of the deceased. 15. The present revisionist shall have a right to move another application under section 319 Cr.P.C. for the same purpose after recording the aforesaid evidence. 16. Copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for compliance and necessary action. September 15, 2025 ss CRLR No. 4302 of 2025 5 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad