Allahabad High Court

KUMARI KIRTI SINGHversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

Decided: 23 February 2026
Bench: ABDUL SHAHID

Holding

The revision is dismissed as criminal revision jurisdiction does not permit re‑appreciation of evidence and no illegality is found in the trial court’s order.

Summary

The revisionist, sister‑in‑law of the deceased, challenged the Sessions Judge’s order convicting her under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, arguing that the FIR was lodged six months after the incident, that the deceased had committed suicide, and that a compromise had been reached. The trial court had rejected her discharge application after a charge sheet was filed. The revisionist relied on a joint affidavit stating the deceased was short‑tempered and that there was no evidence against her. The High Court examined whether a criminal revision can re‑appreciate evidence or substitute the trial court’s findings. It held that the scope of criminal revision is limited to checking legality, correctness, and jurisdiction, not conducting a mini‑trial. Consequently, the Court found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and dismissed the revision.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal revision can re‑appreciate evidence and substitute the trial court’s findings.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and alleged compromise render the trial court’s order illegal.
Whether the charge under Section 306 IPC against the revisionist is sustainable in view of the affidavit stating suicide.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156
Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 306

Subjects

criminal revision
abetment of suicide
Section 306 IPC
delay in FIR
jurisdiction
discharge application
compromise

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 702 of 2024

Kumari Kirti Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Kaushik, G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel appearing for
opposite party no. 2, and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated
19.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, in Sessions
Trial No. 343 of 2023, State of U.P. Vs. Kumari Kirti Singh, arising out of
case crime no. 175 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kalpi,
District Jalaun.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is the
nanad (sister-in-law) of the deceased and, at the time of the alleged incident,
she was unmarried. The FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay of six
months after due legal consultation. At the time of preparation of the inquest
report, the complainant was present; however, no complaint was lodged at
that stage. Thereafter, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed,
pursuant to which the FIR came to be registered.

4. It is further submitted that the date of occurrence is 01.03.2022, whereas
the FIR was registered on 13.09.2022 under Section 302 IPC against the
named accused, namely, Ashish Singh, Shiv Dutt Singh, and the present
revisionist. The marriage of the deceased had taken place in the year 2008
with Ashish Singh. The deceased had two sons; the elder son was 11 years
old and the younger was 8 years old at the time of the incident.

5. It is alleged that Ashish Singh had an illicit relationship with another
woman of the village, which was complained of by the deceased to her
father-in-law, Shiv Dutt Singh. On account of such complaint, Shiv Dutt
Singh and the revisionist allegedly caused mental harassment and cruelty to
the deceased. The deceased is said to have informed her parental family
about the same. It is further alleged that on the night of 01/02.03.2022,
Ashish Singh, Shiv Dutt Singh, and the revisionist, after hatching a
conspiracy, administered a poisonous substance to the victim and committed
her murder.
CRLR No. 702 of 2024
2

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the affidavit of
Dharmendra Singh/opposite party no.2, wherein it is stated that the deceased
was short-tempered and that she committed suicide herself. It is also
submitted that the two children of the deceased are residing with their father.
Learned counsel further submits that the trial court has not recorded proper
satisfaction in the impugned order. Lastly, it is argued that the revisionist is
now married, has one child, and is residing in her matrimonial home.

7. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that there are only general
allegations against the revisionist. The FIR was lodged with considerable
delay under Section 302 IPC; however, after investigation, the charge sheet
has been submitted against the revisionist and other accused persons under
Section 306 IPC.

8. At the stage of criminal revision, a joint affidavit of the revisionist and
Dharmendra Singh/ opposite party no. 2 has been filed. In the said joint
affidavit, opposite party no. 2 has admitted that the deceased was short-
tempered and, due to that reason, committed suicide. It is further stated that
there is no evidence against the revisionist with regard to abetment. In
paragraph 9 of the joint affidavit, it has been prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to allow the present revison and discharge the
revisionist from the offence and quash the entire proceedings of the
aforesaid sessions trial in light of the judgment in B.S. Joshi vs. State of
Haryana, (2003) 46 SCC 779, as the revisionist and opposite party no. 2
have entered into a compromise and resolved their dispute outside the Court.

9. The scope of criminal revision is limited to examining the correctness,
legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order, and to ascertain
whether there is any jurisdictional error. It does not permit re-appreciation of
evidence or conducting a mini-trial.

10. The revisionist is named in the FIR and is already on bail. After
investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against her under Section 306
IPC. The discharge application filed by the revisionist has been duly
considered by the learned trial court and rejected by a reasoned order. At this
stage, meticulous appreciation of evidence or conducting a mini-trial is not
permissible.

11. In view of the aforesaid considerations, there is neither any illegality nor
irregularity in the impugned order. The criminal revision lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
February 24, 2026
M. Tarik
(Abdul Shahid,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…