AKHILESH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

AKHILESH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

The trial court correctly exercised its power under Section 319 CrPC to summon respondent nos.2 and 3 on the basis of eyewitness depositions (PW-1 and PW-2) which inspired confidence; doubts as to credibility and reliance on Section 161 statements are matters for trial and do not justify interference with the summoning order, therefore the High Court's setting aside of the summoning order was erroneous and the trial court order is restored.

Parties
Appellant/complainant: Akhilesh; Respondent(s): State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.; Respondent (respondent No.2): Krishnapal Singh; Respondent (respondent No.3): Sanju @ Sanjay; Accused (charge Sheeted): Gajendra; Accused (charge Sheeted): Mahendrapal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Revision Order Challenging Trial Court's Summons Under Section 319 Cr PC
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Section 319 Cr PC, Summoning Order, Chargesheet, Section 161 Cr PC Statements, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Section 319 Cr PC Summoning Order Chargesheet Section 161 Cr PC Statements Credibility of Witnesses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akhilesh

Appellant/complainant

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Respondent(s)

Krishnapal Singh

Respondent (respondent No.2)

Sanju @ Sanjay

Respondent (respondent No.3)

Gajendra

Accused (charge Sheeted)

Mahendrapal

Accused (charge Sheeted)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Revision Order Challenging Trial Court's Summons Under Section 319 Cr PC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court's summoning order under Section 319 CrPC
  2. 2 Whether doubts as to credibility of prosecution witnesses and reliance on Section 161 CrPC statements can be examined at the summoning stage

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court correctly exercised its power under Section 319 CrPC to summon respondent nos.2 and 3 on the basis of eyewitness depositions (PW-1 and PW-2) which inspired confidence; doubts as to credibility and reliance on Section 161 statements are matters for trial and do not justify interference with the summoning order, therefore the High Court's setting aside of the summoning order was erroneous and the trial court order is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court order dated 08.07.2024 setting aside the trial court's order is set aside
  • Trial Court's order dated 07.07.2023 summoning respondent nos.2 and 3 under Section 319 CrPC is restored