HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4711 of 2024 Court No. - 68 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. No one appears on behalf of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4. 3. The present criminal revision has been filed to set-aside the judgement and order dated 05.08.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, District- Bulandshahar, in S.T. No. 1124 of 2020 (State Vs. Kaushendra @ Shendu) arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2020 u/s 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Syana, District- Bulandshahar. 4. Facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the revisionist had lodged a F.I.R. on 05.05.2020 against Kaushendra @ Shendu with the allegation that Kaushendra has attacked the deceased Vinod with a spanner in the presence of first informant's wife, Sushila Devi and his mother-in-law, Prakashwati. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against Kaushendra @ Shendu. During the trial, the eye witnesses Sushila Devi and Prakashwati, were also examined. They reiterated the prosecution story as mentioned in the F.I.R. regarding causing death of Vinod by Kaushendra @ Shendu but the revisionist who is the first informant in his statement has stated that he received information from his cousin, Krishna Kumar on 11.05.2020 that opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 are also involved in the aforesaid incident of causing murder of Vinod. On the basis of the statement of the revisionist, application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist which was rejected by the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order is absolutely erroneous and the court below has failed to consider that the revisionist has made specific allegation against the private respondents for Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari, G.A., Nitin Raj Singh Dinesh Singh Chaudhary .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) conspiring the murder of his brother-in-law, Vinod. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the revisionist was not the eye witness of the incident. The eye witnesses, Sushila Devi and Prakashwati, did not mention the fact of conspiracy on the part of the private respondents regarding the murder of deceased Vinod. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that for the incident dated 04.05.2020, the present revisionist has lodged a F.I.R. on 05.05.2020 making specific allegation of causing murder of Vinod by one Kaushendra @ Shendu in the presence of his wife, Sushila Devi as well as his mother-in-law, Prakashwati and the police on the basis of his statement filed charge-sheet against Kaushendra. It is further clear from the record that the eye witnesses, Sushila Devi and Prakashwati, did not say anything in their statements during trial against the involvement of the private respondents in a conspiracy to kill Vinod. However, the present revisionist who was not the eye witness, has stated the fact regarding the involvement of private respondents in the conspiracy for the murder of Vinod merely on the basis of statement of his cousin, Krishna Kumar. Therefore, the source of information regarding involvement of private respondents to kill Vinod is the information received from Krishna Kumar on 11.05.2020. 8. For summoning a person u/s 319 Cr.P.C., more than prima facie evidence is required. The Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92 as well as Satbir Singh Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others, Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2025 has observed that summoning a person to join a trial as an additional accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is a serious matter which requires sufficient material which should be more than simply a case of prima facie. In the present case, there is no material except the hearsay evidence of the revisionist who was not the eye witness regarding the involvement of the private respondents in the conspiracy to kill deceased Vinod. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no sufficient material to summon the private respondents u/s 319 Cr.P.C. 9. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the court below. The present revision is accordingly, dismissed. September 8, 2025 KS CRLR No. 4711 of 2024 2 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KISHAN SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad