Jharkhand High Court

Manoranjan Prasad Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 October, 2023

                                -1-


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Revision No.415 of 2023
Manoranjan Prasad Sinha                     ..... ... Petitioner
                           Versus
The State of Jharkhand                     .... .... Opposite Party
                        --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

------

For the Petitioner     : In Person
For the State          : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P.
                       --------
08/9 October, 2023
      th

1. The present criminal revision has been directed against the order

dated 10th February, 2023 which was signed on 21st February,

2023 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I,

Ranchi in S.T. Case No.569 of 2018, whereby the application filed

by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. The petitioner, who is appearing In Person before this Court has

submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged against four

named accused and two unknown persons. Though all the six

accused persons have been assigned the role in committing the

alleged offence in furtherance of common intention, yet some of

the accused have been attributed specific role. The Investigating

Officer after concluding the investigation filed charge-sheet only

against the three accused, who were named in the F.I.R. and

exonerated one named accused and two other accused who were

not named in the F.I.R. After filing of the charge-sheet before the

court concerned, the cognizance was also taken for the very

offence under which the charge-sheet was filed and the case was

committed for trial to the court of Sessions. The court of Sessions

also framed the charge and trial was commenced. The informant

(the petitioner in this case) was examined before the learned trial

court as P.W.-1. The informant in his statement thoroughly

corroborated the contents of the F.I.R. and also attributed the

specific role to some of the accused and general and omnibus role

to other accused. All the six accused have been attributed role in

committing the alleged offence but the learned trial court without

taking into consideration the testimony of the informant, who was

also the injured eye-witness whose testimony holds much

significance has rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

It is also submitted that only touchstone to summon the accused

is whether the case for trial is found against the accused who

have been attributed role in commission of the offence during trial

even at the stage of examination-in-chief. The medical evidence

also corroborates the statement of informant, who is injured eye-

witness. The petitioner in support of his contention has relied

upon the following case laws :

i. Manjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana and Ors., (2021) SCC

Online SC 632.

ii. Sartaj Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2021 SC 1513

3. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently

opposed the contentions made by the petitioner who is appearing

In Person before this Court and contended that the impugned

order passed by the learned trial court bears no infirmity and

needs no interference as the same has been passed in view of

appreciation of the testimony of the witness.

4. I have heard the petitioner appearing In Person and learned A.P.P.

for the State.

5. The matrix of the prosecution case are that the informant, namely,

Manoranjan Prasad Sinha gave the written information with the

police station concerned alleging therein that on 17th October,

2017 at 10 o' clock of day time, he was cooking food in his

kitchen. In the meantime on the issue of refusal for the white-

wash, Amit Poddar @ Ranjit Poddar, Ramendra Poddar, Renu

Poddar, Ravi Shankar Prasad and two other persons had come

with intent to commit murder of the informant and his son

Subham Sinha. However, the informant and his son both managed

to escape having intruded in the house but all these accused

persons also intruded in the house and assaulted them. On raising

alarm, the persons of the locality gave information to the police.

The police came there and the informant and his son were rushed

to the hospital.

6. This written information was registered as Dhurwa (Sadar) P.S.

Case No.242 of 2017 under Sections 448, 323, 324, 325, 307/34

of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Amit Poddar @

Ranjit Poddar, Ramendra Poddar, Renu Poddar, Ravi Shankar

Prasad and two other persons.

7. The I.O. after having concluded the investigation, filed charge-

sheet against the accused Amit Poddar @ Ranjit Poddar, Renu

Poddar and Raghunandan Poddar and exonerated the named

accused Ravi Shankar Prasad and two other persons.

8. The court concerned after taking cognizance, committed the case

to the court of Sessions for trial. The court of Sessions framed

charge against Amit Poddar @ Ranjeet Poddar, Raghunandan

Poddar and Renu Kumari under Sections 450/307/34 of the I.P.C.

and the trial was commenced.

9. Before the learned trial court, Manoranjan Prasad Sinha was

examined as P.W.-1. This witness in his examination-in-chief stated

that the occurrence is of 17th October, 2017 and the time was 10

o' clock of day time and he was cooking food. He and his son were

present at the house. He saw from the window of the kitchen that

Raghunandan Poddar @ Ramendra Poddar, Amit Poddar @

Ranjeet Poddar, Renu Poddar, Ravishankar Prasad, Virendra Kumar

Gupta, Sandeep Kumar along with two labours were attempting to

demolish the boundary wall and were asking for the white-wash.

He refused for the same but all the accused persons hurled abuse.

He said his son to inform the Management of H.E.C. On this very

issue, all these six accused persons, who were armed with sword

and rod assaulted them. Amit Poddar was armed with sword and

other five were armed with rod. Ravi Shankar assaulted with rod

which hit on his left thigh. Amit Poddar assaulted with sword

which hit on his head. Ravi Shankar also assaulted on his left

hand, whereby the bone fractured. Amit Poddar also gave the

blow with sword causing injury on his hand. However, Ravi

Shankar fell down upon the informant (the P.W.-1) and he also

sustained sword injury. Renu Poddar also gave blow with rod

causing injury on the middle finger of his right hand. On

sustaining injury by Ravi Shankar, all the five accused persons

took Ravi Shankar to their house. Meanwhile, he ran away from

there and came into his house and closed the door. Then except

Ravi Shankar, all five accused came to his house and broke the

door with rod and stone. At that time, his son Shubham was

outside the house and the five accused assaulted him with rod

and injured him due to which he got injuries on his right and left

hand and also on right and left leg.

10. The P.W.-1 Manoranjan Prasad Sinha, who is the informant and

also the injured eye-witness has corroborated the contents of the

F.I.R. Though in the F.I.R. he has named the four persons and two

other persons and also showed their complicity in commission of

the alleged offence, yet in his statement he also gave the name of

those two persons, who were along with four named accused. The

testimony of this injured eye-witness is also corroborated with the

medical evidence. In paragraph 79 of the case-diary, the details of

injuries sustained by the informant - Manoranjan Sinha are given,

which are as under :

i. Stitched wound over right parietal region of scalp, size 6 cm in length.

ii. Swelling over lower forearm, size 3 cm x 2cm. iii. Stitched wound below left knee, size 3 cm in length. iv. Abrassion in middle finger of right hand, size 1x0.5 cm.

In x-ray report forearm and wrist joint shown fractured.

11. In paragraph 80 of the case-diary, the details of injuries sustained

by the son of the informant- Subham Sinha are given which reads

as under :

i. Abrasion over right forearm, size 4 cm x 2 cm.

ii. Swelling is present over right forearm, size 3 cm x 2 cm. iii. Abrasion over left side knee joint, size 2 cm x 2cm.

In x-ray report and CT scan report no fracture is shown.

12. It is the settled law that while disposing of the application under

Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court is empowered to summon those

accused who were not named in the F.I.R. or not charge-sheeted.

13. In the case in hand, the four persons were named along with two

other persons. The charge-sheet was filed by the I.O. only against

three accused persons. During examination before the learned

trial court, the P.W.-1 Manoranjan Prasad Sinha has named all the

six accused persons showing their complicity in commission of the

offence. This witness is the informant-cum-victim of the

occurrence. He has corroborated the contents of the F.I.R. and his

testimony is also corroborated with the injury reports of both the

injured persons which are in paragraphs 79 and 80 of the case-

diary. It is also the settled law that while evaluating the testimony

of a witness who were examined before the trial court, the

examination-in-chief is sufficient to summon the accused, if found

reliable and trustworthy.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State

of Punjab & Ors. reported in 2014 (3) SCC 94 at paragraphs

12, 13, 22, 25, 83, 84, 106 and 116 has held as under:

"12. Section 319 CrPC springs out of the doctrine judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted) and this doctrine must be used as a beacon light while explaining the

ambit and the spirit underlying the enactment of Section 319 CrPC.

13. It is the duty of the court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial. The question remains under what circumstances and at what stage should the court exercise its power as contemplated in Section 319 CrPC?

22. In our opinion, Section 319 CrPC is an enabling provision empowering the court to take appropriate steps for proceeding against any person not being an accused for also having committed the offence under trial. It is this part which is under reference before this Court and therefore in our opinion, while answering the question referred to herein, we do not find any conflict so as to delve upon the situation that was dealt with by this Court in Dharam Pal (CB) [Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2014) 3 SCC 306 : AIR 2013 SC 3018] .

25. The stage of inquiry and trial upon cognizance being taken of an offence, has been considered by a large number of decisions of this Court and that it may be useful to extract the same hereunder for proper appreciation of the stage of invoking of the powers under Section 319 CrPC to understand the meaning that can be attributed to the words "inquiry" and "trial" as used under the section.

83. It is, therefore, not any material that can be utilised, rather it is that material after cognizance is taken by a court, that is available to it while making an inquiry into or trying an offence, that the court can utilise or take into consideration for supporting reasons to summon any person on the basis of evidence adduced before the court, who may be on the basis of such material, treated to be an accomplice in the commission of the offence. The inference that can be drawn is that material which is not exactly evidence recorded before the court, but is a material collected by the court, can be utilised to corroborate evidence already recorded for the purpose of summoning any other person, other than the accused. This would harmonise such material with the word "evidence" as material that would be supportive in nature to facilitate the exposition of any other accomplice whose complicity in the offence may have either been suppressed or escaped the notice of the court.

84. The word "evidence" therefore has to be understood in its wider sense both at the stage of trial and, as discussed earlier, even at the stage of inquiry, as used under Section 319 CrPC. The court, therefore, should be understood to have the power to proceed against any person after summoning him on the basis of any such material as brought forth before it. The duty and obligation of the court becomes more onerous to invoke such powers cautiously on such material after evidence has been led during trial.

106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence" is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused". 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.

116. Thus, it is evident that power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised against a person not subjected to investigation, or a person placed in Column 2 of the charge-sheet and against whom cognizance had not been taken, or a person who has been discharged. However, concerning a person who has been discharged, no proceedings can be commenced against him directly under Section 319 CrPC without taking recourse to provisions of Section 300(5) read with Section 398 CrPC."

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra

Srivastava v. State of U.P. reported in (2021) 12 SCC 608 at

paragraphs 8 and 10 has held as under :

8. While this Court has approved of relying upon deposition which has not suffered cross-examination for the purpose of invoking Section 319CrPC, it is relevant to note the standards which have been fixed by this Court for invoking the power under Section 319CrPC. The statement of law in this regard is contained in paras 105 and 106 of Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] : (SCC p. 138) "105. Power under Section 319CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319CrPC. In Section 319CrPC the purpose of providing if 'it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence' is clear from the words 'for which such person could be tried together with the accused.' The words used are not 'for which such person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."

(emphasis in original)

10. We say this for the following reason : The test as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court for invoking power under Section 319CrPC inter alia includes the principle that only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence the power under Section 319CrPC should be exercised. The power cannot be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. The test to be applied, as

laid down by this Court, is one which is more than prima facie case which is applied at the time of framing of charges."

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar v. State of

Uttarakhand reported in (2021) 4 SCC 301 at paragraph 4 has

held as under :

"4. The principles for exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC by the criminal court are well settled. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] , has elaborately considered all contours of Section 319 CrPC. This Court has held that power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power which has to be exercised sparingly. This Court further held that the test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In paras 105 and 106, the following has been laid down : (SCC p. 138) "105. Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes un-rebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if 'it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence' is clear from the words 'for which such person could be tried together with the accused'. 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."

(emphasis in original)

17. In view of the submissions made and also taking into

consideration the settled legal propositions of law as laid by the

Hon'ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove, there were sufficient

grounds before the learned trial court to allow the application of

the petitioner to summon the accused persons, who were named

and assigned role by the informant (the injured eye-witness) in his

- 10 -

testimony.

18. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, allowed. The

impugned order is set aside and the application under Section 319

Cr.P.C. of petitioner/applicant stood allowed. The learned court

below is to follow the consequences in view of the judgment

passed in this criminal revision.