LexAKHILESH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1431 : 2025 INSC 431 Akhilesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1758 of 2025) 28 March 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court’s summoning order. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Summoning of the assailants to face trial – Dispute over the boundary of agricultural field between the parties – Four persons, including respondent no.2 and 3, shot dead the victim – FIR filed by the appellant-victim’s son – Respondent no.2 and 3 named in the FIR but not named in the chargesheet as accused – Chargesheet was filed u/ss.302, 504 and 506 IPC against the other two, while a final report was filed in relation to respondent nos.2 and 3 – Trial court, on basis of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, summoned respondent nos.2 and 3 to face trial – Challenge to – High Court setting aside the trial court’s summoning order – Correctness: Held: Powers u/s.319 are wide and if, during the trial or inquiry, any person, who appears to be involved in the commission of a crime but not brought before the Court as an accused, can be summoned by the Court to face the trial and such a person can be tried together with the other accused being tried before the Court – Respondent nos.2 and 3 were named in the FIR but were not named in the chargesheet as accused – After recording the depositions of prosecution witnesses which inspired the confidence of the trial court, these respondents were summoned to face trial u/s.319 – Doubts raised on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, should not be gone into at this stage – High Court erred in setting aside the well reasoned order of trial court by giving undue weightage to the s.161 statements of some witnesses – When the trial court, on the strength of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, has summoned respondent nos.2 and 3 to face trial, then the decision of the trial court does not merit interference in the light of the 1432 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports evidence before the Court – Thus, the impugned order set aside and that of the trial court is restored – s.161. [Paras 8-13] Case Law Cited Rajesh v. State of Haryana [2019] 8 SCR 187 : (2019) 6 SCC 368; S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak [2017] 10 SCR 29 : (2017) 16 SCC 226 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Summoning order; Dispute over the boundary of agricultural field; Chargesheet; Final report; Trial or inquiry; Testimonies of prosecution witnesses; Credibility of the prosecution witnesses; Undue weightage to s.161 CrPC statements of witnesses. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1758 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 08.07.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CRLR No. 4486 of 2023 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Divyesh Pratap Singh, Ms. Shivangi Singh, Amit Sangwan, Jay Veer Yadav, Ashu Bhindwar, Suraj Prakash Singh, Vikram Pratap Singh. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Mrs. Phsephalika Srivastava, Ms. Pratiksha Tripathi, Chand Qureshi, Roshan Lal, Ashish Dixit, Keshav Dev, Ms. Monika Sharma, Vijay Kumar. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant before this Court has challenged the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1433 Akhilesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. where criminal revision filed by respondent no.2 (Krishna Pal Singh) and respondent no.3 (Sanju @ Sanjay) was allowed and the Trial Court’s order dated 07.07.2023, summoning the above respondents under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), was set aside. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) On 15.11.2021, the appellant filed an FIR (No.349/2021) at P.S Dataganj, Badaun (Uttar Pradesh) under Sections 302, 504 and 506 of IPC, alleging that four persons, namely Gajendra, Mahendrapal, Krishnapal (respondent no. 2) and Sanju (respondent no. 3) shot his father (deceased) dead due to a dispute over the boundary of an agricultural field. (b) The chargesheet was filed under Sections 302, 504 and 506 of IPC against Gajendra and Mahendrapal, while a final report was filed in relation to Respondent nos. 2 and 3. (c) Based on the depositions o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.