Allahabad High Court

SANTOSH SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA

Holding

The trial court’s order summoning the revisionist was unsustainable and is set aside, allowing the revision.

Summary

Santosh Singh filed a criminal revision under Section 319 Cr.P.C. challenging the Additional Sessions Judge’s order that summoned him as an accused in a murder case (Sections 302, 504, 436 IPC). The revisionist argued that the trial court relied on eye‑witness statements claiming a licensed gun was fired from 100 metres, a range exceeding the weapon’s certified capability, rendering the evidence unreliable. The State opposed the revision but could not rebut the credibility concerns raised. The High Court held that the trial court had not applied a judicial mind to the evidentiary deficiencies and set aside the summons. It directed the trial court to re‑examine the evidence and pass a fresh order, citing the Apex Court’s decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. The judgment clarified that its observations would not affect any other pending trials against co‑accused.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in issuing a summons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist on the basis of questionable eyewitness testimony.
Whether the alleged firing distance of a licensed gun, exceeding its lawful range, defeats the prosecution’s case against the revisionist.
Whether the trial court’s order should be set aside and a fresh order directed in light of the evidentiary shortcomings.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 319
Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 436, 504

Subjects

criminal revision
Section 319 CrPC
evidentiary credibility
gun range
Section 302 IPC
fresh trial
appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2787 of 2025

Santosh Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Abhishek Srivastava, Akhilesh Kumar,
Rajesh Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Kumar Verma, G.A.

Court No. - 45
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Mishra and Mr. Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for
the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. S.R. Verma and Mr.
Deepak Kumar Verma, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.

2. The revisionist, Santosh Singh, has approached this Court by means of
the present criminal revision challenging the impugned order dated
20.05.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Court no.
2, Fatehpur (herein after referred as to "Trial Court) whereby in S.T. No.
15 of 2018 (State VS. Manna Singh and others), arising out of Case
Crime No. 261 of 2016, under Sections 302, 504 and 436 IPC, P.S.
Chandpur, District Fatehpur the revisionist has been summoned under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial along with other co-accused.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal revision has
been filed on the ground that the impugned order is against law and has
been passed without application of judicial mind. Elaborating his
submissions, the learned counsel for revisionist has drawn the attention of
the court to the impugned order, which is based on statements accrued at
pages 18-20 of the paper book, considered by the trial court. P.W. 1 has
stated that firing was done from the distance of 100 meters using a
licensed gun, whereas the effective range of a licensed gun is not more
than 50 meters. Similar statement has been given by P.W.2, which do not
appear to be credible. From the statements of these occular witnesses
their presence itself becomes doubtful. Apart from this, even these two
CRLR No. 2787 of 2025
2

two eye witnesses have assigned no specific role to the revisionist and
urged that there is no credible evidence against the revisionist to show any
possibility of conviction. It is thus contended that the impugned order is
liable to be set aside by this court.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for O.P.
No. 2 have vehemently opposed the criminal revision but could not over
come the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for
revisionist regarding the range of firing of the licensed gun.

5. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the statements on
record, which clearly support the case of the revisionist and could not be
effectively rebutted by the opposite side, this Court is of the view that the
impugned order is liable to be dismissed and the present revision is liable
to be allowed.

6. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed and the impugned order
passed by the trial court is set aside.

7. The trial court is directed to pass order a fresh after due appreciation of
evidence on record in light of judgment of Apex Court in Hardeep Singh
Vs. State of Punjab (2014)3 SCC 92.

8. It is made clear that any observation made in he judgment shall not
come in the way of trail pending against accused other then revisionist
before the trial court.

(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
May 6, 2026
RPD

Digitally signed by :-
RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…