Allahabad High Court

AARTIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 8 March 2026
Bench: ABDUL SHAHID

Holding

The criminal revision is dismissed, and the trial court's order stands.

Summary

Aarti (the revisionist) challenged the trial court's order dated 5 February 2026 that had named her as a conspirator in the murder of her brother-in-law. She argued that the FIR was lodged two days after the incident, that there was no independent eyewitness, no call data records, and no material recovered from her, contending that she was falsely implicated due to a property dispute among the deceased's brothers. The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, countered that the FIR and charge‑sheet correctly identified her, citing evidence of an illicit relationship and her specific role in the offence, which falls under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 238 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court examined the submissions and found no merit in the alleged procedural lapses, holding that the trial court's findings were not infirm. Consequently, the Court dismissed the criminal revision, upholding the trial court's order.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and alleged lack of evidence warrant setting aside the trial court's order.
Whether the revisionist can be held liable as a conspirator under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 238 of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether the criminal revision petition is maintainable in the circumstances.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 238, 61(2)

Subjects

criminal revision
false implication
FIR delay
property dispute
murder
conspiracy
Indian Penal Code
Sections 103, 61, 238
evidence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1587 of 2026

Aarti
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shiv Kumar Kesari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for
the State.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned
order dated 5.2.2026 passed by the learned trial court is unjustifiable,
illegal and it is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there is delay of
two days in lodging the first information report. There is no
independent witness. The role of the revisionist has simply assigned as
a conspirator. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted
that the revisionist has been wrongly named in the case by the police on
the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused and enmity with
the revisionist, mentioned in the first information report whereas it is
not mentioned what is the nature of the enmity with the revisionist.
There is no eye witness of the said incident. The mobile call and the
location of the revisionist about the alleged incident. The investigating
officer has not collected the CDR of the revisionist and the deceased.
The revisionist is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the
present case. She is having no enmity with the deceased. There is no
motive mentioned in the first information report. It is further alleged
that the first information report has been lodged after delay of 36 hours
after consulting the legal counsel. No material related to the incident has
been recovered from the revisionist. The revisionist has no specific role
CRLR No. 1587 of 2026
2

in the crime. There is no recovery from the possession of the
revisionist. The reality is that the deceased are three brothers including
him. The deceased is younger and unmarried and the rests two
brothers are married. There is property dispute of the deceased with his
brothers and sister-in-laws. Due to the said property dispute, on several
occasions hard talk took place between the deceased, his brothers and
sister-in-laws. Due to the said dispute, the brothers have killed the
deceased with the collusion of sister-in-laws so that the property will be
partitioned only in two shares.

4. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the impugned order is purely
unjustifiable. She has been named in the first information report and
charge-sheet has been filed against her. There is specific role of the
revisionist in the said offence. The deceased was unmarried. The cause of
death of the deceased was ante mortem several injuries on the body as
well as head injury. It is alleged that the deceased and the revisionist
were having illicit relationship. The deceased and the revisionist both
are co-villagers. The revisionist is named in the first information
report. There are several serious allegations against her and evidence
were found against her during the investigation. Thereafter the charge-
sheet has also been filed against the revisionist. The offence committed
is very serious in nature. Neither any mini trial nor meticulous
appreciation of the evidence is permissible, at this stage, more
particularly, in the serious and heinous offences under Sections 103 (1),
61 (2) and 238 BNS. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order dated 5.2.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court
No. 2, Bulandshahaar in Sessions Trial No. 3656 of 2025.

5. The instant criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. It is
dismissed accordingly.

(Abdul Shahid,J.)
March 9, 2026
n.u.

Digitally signed by :-
NASEEM UDDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…