On August 1, 2025, the Allahabad High Court, dismissed two criminal revisions filed by Monu Singh @ Dhirendra Singh and Vishwajeet Singh. The revisions challenged their summoning under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in connection with a case involving serious offenses, including rape, murder, and violations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR lodged on June 27, 2015, at Police Station Sikriganj, District Gorakhpur. The complainant alleged that in the intervening night of June 26-27, 2015, his 16-year-old daughter was assaulted by the accused, who attempted to rape her and later set her on fire after pouring kerosene. The victim succumbed to her injuries during treatment.
Read also:- High Court Imposes Fine on Lawyer for Disrespectful Conduct During Virtual Hearing
Initially, the police filed a chargesheet only against one accused, Suraj Singh, while the revisionists (Monu Singh and Vishwajeet Singh) were not chargesheeted. However, during the trial, the court summoned the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on the testimonies of the complainant (P.W.1) and the victim’s elder sister (P.W.2).
The revisionists contended that their summoning was illegal and based on unreliable evidence. Their key arguments included:
- The prosecution’s case relied heavily on hearsay evidence, as no eyewitnesses directly implicated them.
- The victim’s dying declaration recorded by the Naib Tehsildar did not clearly name them for the offenses of attempted rape and setting her on fire, creating inconsistencies with her earlier statement to the Investigating Officer.
- The forensic report raised doubts about the prosecution’s version of events, suggesting the incident could not have occurred as alleged.
- The trial court ignored the Investigating Officer’s findings, which exonerated the revisionists due to lack of evidence.
They cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Brijendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2017), emphasizing that summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires stronger evidence than a mere prima facie case.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Partly Sets Aside Trial Court Order on Foreign Power of Attorney in Property Dispute
Counterarguments by the State and Opposite Party
The State and the complainant opposed the revisions, asserting:
- The victim’s dying declarations, recorded by both the Naib Tehsildar and the Investigating Officer, clearly named the revisionists as perpetrators.
- The testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 during the trial provided strong evidence of the revisionists’ involvement.
- The forensic report’s conclusions could not override the direct evidence from the victim’s statements.
- The trial court rightly exercised its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as the evidence indicated more than a prima facie case against the revisionists.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Rights Under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act for Owner’s Death
Justice Sameer Jain, after examining the records, upheld the trial court’s order. The court noted:
- The victim’s dying declarations, though recorded by different authorities, consistently implicated the revisionists in the crime.
- The statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 during the trial corroborated the victim’s allegations, even if P.W.2’s testimony had minor inconsistencies with her earlier statement.
- The forensic report’s doubts did not outweigh the direct evidence provided by the victim and witnesses.
- The trial court correctly applied the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014), ensuring that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was used judiciously.
"The veracity of the statements of the witnesses and dying declarations of the deceased could only be adjudicated by the trial court during trial," observed the High Court.
The court concluded that the trial court had sufficient material to summon the revisionists, and there was no illegality in the impugned order.
Both criminal revisions were dismissed, affirming the trial court’s decision to summon the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts must carefully evaluate evidence before exercising their extraordinary powers under this provision.
Case Title: Monu Singh @ Dhirendra Singh & Another vs. State of U.P. and Others