HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4255 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 1, Budaun in Session Trial No. 887 of 2020 (State vs. Chandrakesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 66 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Mujariya, District-Budaun, by which the revisionists have been summoned under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 namely, Tejpal and Premwati has been recorded during the course of trial. He next submitted that PW-1 in his statement has stated that, though he has seen the prospective accused persons, while they were running away after commission of offence. However, in the next paragraph he has stated that he dialed on 112 number, informing the police, without naming any person in the said incident. He further submitted that the incident is of midnight, however PW-3 in her statement has stated that, she has seen the assailants in the sunlight. He also submitted that even, if it is presumed to be a mistake, but no prudent person will make any such statement that he or she can not distinguish between sun and moon and therefore, the statement given by the PW-3 is not having much weightage, on the basis of which the prospective accused persons can be summoned. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submitted that initially an FIR Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Nagendra Kumar Singh, Ajit Kumar, Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Satyapal And 3 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) was lodged against four persons namely, Satyapal, Jagdish, Mahesh and Rakesh, however two persons namely, Chandrakesh and Iqbal were chargesheeted and rest were dropped, even then, the revisionists are going to be falsely implicated, therefore, the summoning order 4.7.2024 is wholly illegal and arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 has submitted that after having found the sufficient evidence, as per testimony of PW-1 and PW-3, the learned trial Court has passed a detailed and speaking order and on the basis of testimony of two witnesses, the prospective accused persons have been summoned. Both the witnesses have categorically stated about the involvement of the revisionist and prayed that the present revision is liable to be set aside. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that PW-1 has stated that he dialed 112 number without naming any accused persons, as well as stated, that he has seen the assailants running away from the place of occurrence. At the same time PW-3 stated that she has seen the prospective accused persons in sunlight, though the incident pertains to midnight. From the record, it is clear that other three witnesses namely, PW- 4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 are yet to be examined. As per the evidence available on record, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 is not sufficient to summon the prospective accused persons, however as and when the testimony of PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 is complete, it shall remain open to the opposite party no. 2 to move appropriate application either for pressing the present application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. or may file an application afresh, for summoning the prospective accused persons, if so advised. 7. Under such circumstances, the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 04.07.2024 is hereby set aside and the revision is accordingly allowed. September 25, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 4255 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad