Ravendra And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4113 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2092 of 2014
 
Revisionist :- Ravendra And Anr.
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- A.R. Gupta
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.

This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 05.07.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Firozabad, summoning the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Facts which gave rise to the revision are that the revisionists Ravindra and Satya Sheel were named in the first information report but the I.O. did not submit charge sheet against the aforesaid two accused and only submitted charge sheet against Chaviram @ Mora, Sundarpal and Sher Singh. At the stage of evidence the statements of PW-1 Hari Om and PW-2 Rajbhan were recorded. Hence examination in chief and cross examination have concluded. Both the witnesses have supported the prosecution version as regards the involvement of accused Ravendra and Satyasheel are concerned, there is sufficient evidence to prove that both the aforesaid accused can be convicted. Hence learned lower court has summoned the revisionists under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 506 I.P.C.

Feeling aggrieved the revisionists have preferred this present revision.

I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

It has been argued on behalf of the revisionists that according to the evidence adduced, this is a case of no evidence against the revisionists and learned lower court has committed material irregularity in summoning the present revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the revisionists while placing reliance upon 2011 (1) All. Cr. J. page 19 (Ishrawati Vs. State of U.P. and another) has argued that the learned lower court has not recorded any finding that there was likelihood of conviction of the revisionist. Thus the order is bad in the eye of law.

Learned counsel for the revisionists has also placed reliance upon the medical report which shows that the deceased sustained only one fire arm wound on the Parietal surface of scalp where as according to the witnesses all the five accused opened fire. Thus the case does not fit with the framework of the prosecution. Emphasis has also been placed on the report of I.O. on the charge sheet in which the I.O. has specified that the accused Ravendra Singh and Satyasheel @ Satta were not found involved in the offences but infact during the investigation it was found that one Pappu was involved in the offence.

I fail to understand how the investigating officer developed his own new story. No doubt the name of Pappu has found place in the statement of PW-1 Hari Om who has stated that one day prior to the occurrence Pappu's son Rahul was assaulted by son of Satyendra which is not in his knowledge but something happened between the Pappu and other children. He has also relied upon the cross examination of witnesses who has said that none of the fire shot of Chavi Ram and Ravendra hit Brahmdeo. I do not think it would exonerate the revisionists from the liability because according to the summoning court, all the five accused have made unlawful assembly and the revisionists were summoned with the aid of Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 506 I.P.C.

Referring to the Statement of Rajbhan PW-2, he has specifically said that both the revisionists opened fire from their fire arm whose fire hit the deceased would be a matter of trial. At the final stage of trial, such fishing inquiries in the statements of the witnesses cannot be done at this stage because it could prejudice the trial to the accused summoned under Sections 319 Cr.P.C.

As far as the dispute between Veer Singh and K.P. Singh is concerned, that is another incident which cannot be looked into at this stage.

Counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance upon 2008 (2) JIC page 426 (SC) (Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan) in which it has been laid down as follows:-

"A glance at these provisions would suggest that during the trial it has to appear from the evidence that a person not being an accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused who are also being tried. The key words in this Section are "it appears from the evidence"...."any person"...."has committed any offence". It is not, therefore, that merely because some witnesses have mentioned the name of such person or that there is some material against that person, the discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be used by the court. This is apart from the fact that such person against whom such discretion is used, should be a person who could be tried together with the accused against whom the trial is already going on. This Court has, time and again, declared that the discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly and with caution and only when the concerned court is satisfied that some offence has been committed by such person. This power has to be essentially exercised only on the basis of the evidence. It could, therefore, be used only after the legal evidence comes on record and from that evidence it appears that the concerned person has committed an offence. The words "it appears" are not to be read lightly. In that the court would have to be circumspect while exercising this power and would have to apply the caution which the language of the Section demands. "

Thus, law is very clear on this point that before a trial court seeks to take recourse to the said provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the requisite ingredients, therefore, must be fulfilled. Commission of an offence by a person not facing trial, must, therefore, appear to the court concerned. It cannot be ipse dixit on the part of the court. Discretion in this behalf must be judicially exercised and it is incumbent that the court must arrive at its satisfaction in this behalf.

In 2014 (1) JIC page 539 (SC) (Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others) the degree and standard of satisfaction of court in summoning accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be different, which is as follows:-

"Though under Section 319(4)(b), Cr.P.C. the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the Court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319, Cr.P.C. would be the same as for framing a charge. The difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial - therefore, the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different."

Thus, perusal of the record shows that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly the revision is dismissed.

Order Date :- 7.8.2014

sailesh