The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, by a judgment dated May 22, 2026, allowed a criminal appeal filed by one Pramod Kumar Singh alias Guddu Singh, set aside his conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Hardoi in Session Trial No. 465/2008, and acquitted him of all charges, holding that the evidence recorded in the absence of an accused person, which is relied upon to summon him under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot form the basis of his conviction. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi.
The case had its genesis in an FIR lodged on March 9, 2008 alleging that on the night of March 8, 2008, one Vijay Kumar Singh alias Pappu was sitting on a platform in front of his house when Bhau Singh, Bhanna Singh, Sport Singh and the appellant Pramod Kumar Singh alias Guddu Singh, among others, arrived carrying firearms and opened fire, resulting in Vijay Kumar Singh sustaining gunshot injuries from which he succumbed on March 9, 2008. The complainant Pramod Kumar Singh alias Pintu Singh also sustained injuries in the incident. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a chargesheet dated May 27, 2008 against only four accused — Sport Singh, Bhanna Singh, Bhau Singh and Kallu Singh — specifically recording that the appellant’s involvement in the incident could not be established during investigation. The trial proceeded against the four charge-sheeted accused, and during the course of this trial, an application under Section 319 CrPC was filed to summon the appellant to face trial, which was allowed by order dated June 4, 2012.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 302 read with Section 149, Section 307 read with Section 149, Section 148 and Section 506(2) IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 302/149, rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 307/149, and rigorous imprisonment for two years each with fines for the offences under Sections 506(2) and 148 IPC. This conviction was based principally on the pre-summoning testimonies of prosecution witnesses, notwithstanding the fact that after the appellant was summoned and his trial commenced, the material witnesses had either resiled from their earlier statements or failed to appear.
The High Court examined the facts pertaining to the witnesses closely. After the appellant was summoned and his trial commenced, the injured complainant Pintu Singh alias Pramod Kumar was re-examined as PW-1 on September 5, 2013, and he categorically stated that the appellant was not involved in the incident and was not present at the spot, specifically stating that he had falsely implicated the appellant in his earlier statement under pressure from his family members and certain villagers. Indrapal Singh — the uncle of the deceased and the father of the injured complainant — was re-examined as PW-2 on September 5, 2013, and he too categorically stated that the appellant was not present at the spot and was not involved in the incident. A third witness, Ajay Kumar Singh, whose testimony had been recorded on February 25, 2009 and had been relied upon to summon the appellant, never came forward to get his testimony recorded after the appellant was summoned to face trial.
Despite this, the Trial Court proceeded to convict the appellant by relying on the pre-summoning statement of Indrapal Singh recorded on February 1, 2011 and the pre-summoning statement of Ajay Kumar Singh recorded on February 25, 2009, ignoring the post-summoning statement of Indrapal Singh wherein he categorically exonerated the appellant. The Trial Court had reasoned that once the Court had acted upon testimonies to summon the appellant under Section 319 CrPC, those testimonies could not be ignored and could form the basis of the appellant’s conviction.
The High Court held that this reasoning of the Trial Court was fundamentally erroneous. The Court held that the pre-summoning statement of Indrapal Singh, having been recorded on February 1, 2011 when the appellant had not yet been summoned to face trial, could not be read against the appellant. The Court observed that “the trial Court has acted on the statement of Indrapal Singh recorded earlier, while the appellant had not been summoned to face the trial, but has ignored the statement of this witness recorded after the appellant was summoned, wherein he categorically stated that the appellant was not involved in the incident.” Similarly, the pre-summoning statement of Ajay Kumar Singh, having been recorded before the appellant was summoned, could not be read against the appellant, and since Ajay Kumar Singh had not appeared to testify after the commencement of the appellant’s trial, his earlier statement was of no evidentiary value against the appellant.
The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92], wherein the Apex Court had held that in proceedings under Section 319 CrPC, “the words used are not ‘for which such person could be convicted’. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.” The High Court held that it followed from this settled position that evidence recorded in the absence of an accused person, which is relied upon for summoning him under Section 319 CrPC, cannot form the basis of his conviction.
The Court further held that the Trial Court had ignored the mandate of Section 273 CrPC, which provides that except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader. The Court held that “the evidence recorded when the appellant had not been summoned by the trial Court and he was not present before the trial for this reason, cannot be relied upon by the trial Court.” The Court also referred to Section 299 CrPC, which provides the only statutory exception permitting evidence recorded in the absence of an accused to be read against him — specifically where the accused has absconded and the deponent is dead, incapable of giving evidence, cannot be found, or whose presence cannot be procured without unreasonable delay and expense — and noted that this exception was clearly not applicable in the present case. The Court also examined the requirements of Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Supreme Court’s observations in Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana [(2000) 4 SCC 41] and Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 7 SCC 104] on the right of an accused to be present when witnesses depose and to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, holding that these rights had been wholly ignored by the Trial Court.
The Court also noted that Indrapal Singh, who was the father of the injured witness Pintu Singh and the uncle of the deceased Vijay Kumar Singh, being so closely related to both the deceased and the injured victim, could not be said to be a witness interested in wrongly defending the accused, and there was no reason to discard his post-summoning testimony exonerating the appellant. The Court held that there was no other evidence available on record to establish the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the alleged offence.
Holding that “the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant in the commission of the alleged offences” and that “the trial court has convicted the appellant without adverting to the aforesaid aspect of the matter, which vitiates the finding of the trial court and renders its judgment unsustainable in law,” the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated March 28, 2026, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The appellant was directed to be released from custody forthwith unless wanted in any other case, after complying with the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to ensure his appearance before the Supreme Court in case any appeal is filed against the order.
Case Details:
Pramod Kumar Singh Alias Guddu Singh v. State of U.P. Through Secretary, Department of Home
Criminal Appeal No. 1097 of 2026
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Decided on May 22, 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 