Allahabad High Court
BALAK CHAND BIND AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The High Court set aside the trial court’s summoning order because it was based on the inadmissible testimony of a non‑eyewitness, directing a fresh order after proper consideration of other witnesses.
Summary
The appellants, Balak Chand Bind and two others, appealed a trial court order that summoned them under Section 319 CrPC based on an application under Section 44(Kha). The trial court had relied on the statement of PW‑1, Pappu, who admitted he was not present at the incident, to justify the summons. The appellants contended that the order was illegal because it was based on a non‑eyewitness statement. The High Court examined the record, noted that other injured witnesses (PW‑2, PW‑3) had also been examined, and held that reliance on PW‑1’s inadmissible testimony rendered the summoning order invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to issue a fresh order after proper examination of the other witnesses, thereby allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a trial court can summon an accused under Section 319 CrPC on the basis of a statement of a witness who did not personally witness the alleged offence.
- Whether the application under Section 44(Kha) of the CrPC was valid in the present circumstances.
- Whether the reliance on such testimony violates the procedural safeguards under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 319, 44(Kha)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 427, 452, 504, 506
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(1), 3(1) Da, 3(1) Dha
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 319 CrPC
- Section 44(Kha)
- witness testimony
- appeal
- inadmissible evidence
- summons
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7941 of 2025
Balak Chand Bind And 2 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Krishna Kumar Shukla
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
appellants, Shri Krishna Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the
respondent/informant and Shri K.K. Gupta, learned AGA for the State.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of The Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been
preferred by the appellants with a prayer to allow the appeal and set aside
the impugned order dated 31.7.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act,
Mirzapur in Special Session Trial No. 293 of 2021 (State Vs. Sudhir Bind
and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 91 of 2021 under section 323,
504, 506, 427, 452 I.P.C. and 3 (1) Da, Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station
Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur. By the said impugned order, learned
trial court allowed the application 44 (Kha) under section 319 Cr.P.C.
moved by the opposite party no.2 and summoned the appellants to face
trial for the offence committed under the aforesaid Sections.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants were
summoned by the learned trial court by allowing an application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court has relied upon the statements
of PW-1 Pappu, who has not witnessed the incident. Hence, the impugned
order summoning the present appellants is illegal and is liable to be set
aside.
4. Learned AGA and the learned counsel for the respondent/informant
submitted that perusal of the order indicates that even injured witnesses
CRLA No. 7941 of 2025
2
were examined before the concerned court. Hence, it cannot be said that
those witnesses had not supported the prosecution story. Hence, there is
no need to interfere in the impugned order.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the entire record including the impugned summoning
order.
6. It transpires form the impugned order that other witnesses were also
examined by the learned trial court. It has been mentioned that PW-2 and
PW-3 are injured witnesses. However, the impugned order further reveals
that the learned trial court has relied upon the statement of PW-1, Pappu,
who himself as admitted in his cross-examination that he was not present
on the spot at the time of occurrence.
7. In the given circumstances, the impugned order dated 31.7.2025 passed
by the learned trial court is set aside. The learned trial court is, therefore,
directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after examining the
testimony of other witnesses.
8. This criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
March 19, 2026
SK
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…