Rama Sharma v. Pinki Sharma — 1989 DIGILAW 319 (PAT)

Judgment S.H.S. Abidi, J. The petitioner Rama Sharma has come to this court against the order dated 5.12.88 passed in Sessions trial No. 279/84 by Sri C.D. Rai, learned Additional Sessions Judge IX Patna, refusing to summon O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 under section 319 Cr. P.C. 2. It appears that a complaint was filed by Smt. Rama Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the 'Complainant') before the learned C.J.M., Patna saying that she was married to Brijbhushan Sharma, accused No.5 on 21.2.79 and various valuable articles as detailed in the complaint petition were given to her by way of gift and that both lived a peaceful life for about 4 months. Thereafter the accused namely Dharam Pal Sharma, (father-in-law), Ratan Devi (mother-in-law), Pinki Devi (wife of the elder brother of the husband), Deobrat Sharma (elder brother of the husband) and Brijbhushan Sharma (the husband himself) started to extract money from her and pressed her to bring money from her widowed mother. She brought heavy amounts four or five times but ultimately out of annoyance her mother refused to pay any more. Dharam Pal and Deobrat started pressing the complainant to indulge in flesh trade by giving allurement. Brijbhushan, the husband, also pressed her to indulge in the immoral acts, Pinki Sharma, a woman of bad character and having illicit connection with the complainant's father-in-law Dharam Pal continued in flesh trading and earned handsome money. On her refusal to indulge in the flesh trade the informant was in treated by the accused persons and they began to assault and forced her to go out of the house and they also snatched her ornaments. On various dates she was assaulted. On 18.8.81 at about 10 P.M. Ratan Devi and Pinki Sharma closed the door from inside at the instance of other accused and then Brijbhushan Sharma sprinkled kerosene oil over the complainants body and he tried to lit the fire but her hue and cry attracted the people of the mohalla and then she was saved. It was again on 8.10.81 at about 11 P.M. that she was assaulted by all the accused with fists and slaps bitterly and even her two children were snatched from her for which she lodged an information at the Police station but by the time the police came the accused had left the house. It was again on 8.10.81 at about 11 P.M. that she was assaulted by all the accused with fists and slaps bitterly and even her two children were snatched from her for which she lodged an information at the Police station but by the time the police came the accused had left the house. It was again on 5.1.82 at about 9.30 P.M. that she was assaulted by the accused and turned out of the house bat on the intervention of the police she could go back to her house. It was on 14.1.82 at about 2 A.M. in the night that the accused got her seated in a Taxi but when commotion prevailed in the house her life was saved. On 12.2.82 she was again assaulted and Deobrat Sharma closed her mouth and got her fallen down in a room and then Brijbhushan Sharma started pressing her neck to kill her but it was on the intervention of the neighbours again that her life was saved. Again the accused arranged to kill her on 15.2.82 but somehow she informed the City Superintendent of Police whereupon the notice arrived and found the facts correct but the police did not register any case. Again on 25.2.82 at about 11.30 P.M. the ac 'used assaulted her and Brijbhushan Sharma forced her to write a paper that she was leaving the house on her own accord. Again on 24.5.82 at about 7 P.M. Deobrat Sharma and Pinki Devi sprinkled her water on the complainant in order to kill her but she did not die, though she was hospitalise for about 7 days. Dharam Pal had also raped Malti Devi, a maid servant of the house on 9.5.82 which was also complained of and it had also caused annoyance to the accused. 3. This complaint of Rama Sharma was sent by the learned C.J.M, Patna, to Gandhi-maidan police station where it was registered on 18.6.82 as Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 540 of 1982 under sections 307, 376 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was investigated and then charge-sheet was submitted under the said sections against the said five accused persons. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge being Sessions Trial no. 279/84. 4. In tae sessions trial the accused on 2.8.85 moved an application for their discharge u/s 227 Cr. The case was investigated and then charge-sheet was submitted under the said sections against the said five accused persons. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge being Sessions Trial no. 279/84. 4. In tae sessions trial the accused on 2.8.85 moved an application for their discharge u/s 227 Cr. P.C. saying that no case was made out against them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the parties passed a detailed order dated 18.12.05 saying that no case was made out against Ratan Devi and Pinki Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the 'two women') and the case continued against the three accused. Brijbhushan Sharma was charged under sections 384 and 301 IPC, Dharam Pal Sharma was u/s 307 read with sections 109 and 376 IPC and Deobrata Sharma and Brijbhushan Sharm under section 324 IPC and Deobrata was again charged under sections 307 & 324 IPC. Against this order it appears that none of the parties have filed any revision. 5. The sessions trial No. 279/84 started from 12.3.86 when P.Ws. 1 to 4 namely Janardan Prasad, Smt. Sumitra Buxi mother of the complainant, Surendra Kumar Sharma brother-in-law (Bahnoi) and Dr. Uma Sharma sister of the complainant were examined on various dates. 6. After the examination of these four witnesses an application dated 1.4.86 was filed by the State u/s 319 Cr P.C. which is apparent from the order sheet dated 19.4.86 to summon Pinki Sharma and Ratan Devi, who were already discharged on 18.12.85, on the ground that from the statements of these four witnesses participation of the said two women was made our. The demand of dowry was supported by Sumitra Devi, Surendra Kumar Sharma and Dr. Uma Sharma (P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4). Further other witnesses also supported all the allegations in the complaint and the FIR. 7. The accused filed their reply saying that the application dated 1.4.86 was not maintainable and that the complaint petition (Ext.1) was the basis of the Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 40(C) 82 and which has been proved by P.W.1, that the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 was hearsay evidence, that the two women had already been discharged by the court by order dated 18.12.85 u/s 227 C.P.C. against which no revision has been filed by the complaint. 2, 3 and 4 was hearsay evidence, that the two women had already been discharged by the court by order dated 18.12.85 u/s 227 C.P.C. against which no revision has been filed by the complaint. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties rejected the said application saying that the complaint petition (Ext.1) proved by P.W.1 was not a substantive piece of evidence and so no action could be taken on the petition of complaint, and that the statements of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 were on' the basis of the information given by the complainant Rama Sharma; so unless Rama Sharma was examined the evidence of these three witnesses (P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4) could not be taken into consideration for summoning the two women and it was also said that there was no legal evidence as yet to summon the accused persons. 8. The trial was resumed on 8.5.86 whereafter P.Ws. 5, 6, 7 and 8 were examined. P.W. 8 was the complainant herself whose examination started on 25.5.86 and her cross-examination thereafter continued on various dates. 9. While her cross examination was continuing again an application was made by the State u/s 319 Cr. P.C. for summoning the two women on the ground that P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have already supported the case of the prosecution and that the complainant has also supported her case in various paragraphs of her cross-examination. It was also said in the application that the complainant had sent various applications to the higher authorities namely the Prime Minister of India, the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, for protection of her life. The consideration of this application was deferred till the cross-examination of the complainant was over. 10. After the conclusion of her cross-examination the then learned Additional Sessions Judge IX, Patna, passed an order dated 7.7.87 dismissing the said application dated 13.12.86 made u/s 319 Cr. The consideration of this application was deferred till the cross-examination of the complainant was over. 10. After the conclusion of her cross-examination the then learned Additional Sessions Judge IX, Patna, passed an order dated 7.7.87 dismissing the said application dated 13.12.86 made u/s 319 Cr. P.C. The learned Sessions Judge held that the Additional Sessions Judge had already passed the order dated 18.12.85 that charges against the two women accused are vague and uncertain, that the evidence already available in the case diary has been reproduced by the complainant that if any order is passed by the court u/s 319 Cr P.C. it will amount to review or revision of the earlier order of discharge, against which none of the parties bas tiled any revision. The learned Sessions Judge relied upon the judgment in the case of Radhe Shyam Mishra v. State of U.P. reported in 1986 (III) Crimes page 41 = 1986 Allahabad Law Judgment 1341 where it was held that the section 319 (1) Cr. P.C. is applicable only to a person who is not an accused and is not applicable in the case of a person who has already been discharged; and so the power under section 319 Cr. P.C. cannot be exercised in respect of two women. 11. The petitioner-complainant filed a Criminal Revision No. 716 of 1987 against the said order dated 7.7.67 on the ground that there was no bar to the exercise of the power u/s 319 Cr. P.C. in respect of the discharged accused if during the course of that evidence showed the commission of the offence by them and so the court below has erred in law in not exercising the jurisdiction under this section. 12. During the course of argument learned counsel for tae two women appears to have argued that the application of the petitioner Rama Sharma was not maintainable as she has got no. 1 cus standi after the order of discharge as neither she nor the State has tiled any revision against the same and so it will operate as a bar to the exercise of the jurisdiction u/s 319 Cr. P.C. and that from the evidence led by the prosecution no case for exercise of this jurisdiction was made out. In the said criminal revision it was held by this court that the complainant had a locus standi. Section 190 Cr. P.C. and that from the evidence led by the prosecution no case for exercise of this jurisdiction was made out. In the said criminal revision it was held by this court that the complainant had a locus standi. Section 190 Cr. P.C. has given a right to anyone to file a complaint and the Magistrate could take cognizance of the same if the offence was made out. it was also held that a complainant is really a person who suffers from the act of an accused and to deny a person aggrieved to approach a court of law will be negation of one of the fundamental principles on which the edifice of criminal jurisprudence and justice stands, and that it is through the agency of the State that one approaches the court for the punishment of the offender and for the best interest of the society, but in doing so, a complainant does not lose his order identity and position. Further Section 157 (2) Cr. P.C. provides that the investigating officer is to notify to the informant that he will not investigate the case or will not cause it to be investigated. Similarly Section 173 (2) (ii) also requires the police to inform the informant about the result of the investigation. In the case of A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and another ( AIR 1984 SC 718 : 1984 Cr. L.J. 647) the Supreme Court has held that sections 195 to 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Rive a right to the complainant and this specified provisions indicate that in the absence of any statutory provision locus standi of a complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence. Similarly in the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another ( AIR 1985 SC 1285 ) the Supreme Court has said that when the Officer-in-charge of the police submits a report under section 173 (2) (i), the Magistrate must give an opportunity to the informant of being beard so that be may make submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue processes. In view of the aforesaid provisions and the law laid down by the Supreme Court this court has rejected the contention of the locus standi raised on behalf of the two women. 13. In view of the aforesaid provisions and the law laid down by the Supreme Court this court has rejected the contention of the locus standi raised on behalf of the two women. 13. As regards the contention about the effect of discharge of the two women upon the application u/s 319, Cr. P.C. again this court referred to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay ( AIR 1986 SC 2045 ) where the Supreme Court has held that sections 227, 239 and 245 Cr. P.C. contain somewhat different provisions in regard to discharge of the accused, and in spite of the difference in the language of the three sections, the legal position is that if the trial court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, charge has to be framed. In the case of Municipal Corporation or Delhi v. Ram Kishan Bohatagi and others ( AIR 1983 SC 67 ) the Supreme Court has said that if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence which satisfies the court that the other accused or those who have not been arrayed as accused or against whom proceedings have been quashed have also committed the offence, the court can take cognizance against them and try them along with the other accused. In the case of Joginder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another ( AIR 1979 SC 339 ) it has been observed that the contention that the phrase "any person not being the accused" occurring in S. 319 excludes from its operation an accused who has been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code and has been shown in column No. 2 of the charge-sheet has to be rejected as the said expression clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like Section 319 (1) is that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the court are included in the said expression. 14. In the case of Dr. 14. In the case of Dr. S.S. Khanna v. Chief Secretary, Patna and another ( AIR 1983 SC 595 ) the Supreme Court has said that even when an order of the Magistrate declining to issue process under section 202 is confirmed by a higher court, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under section 319 remains unaffected if other conditions are satisfied. A learned single Judge of the Gujrat High court in the case of Mohan Bhai Bhom Raj v. State of Gujrat and others (1979 Cr. L.J. 1446) has said that in a trial which has commenced after the framing of the charge against some of the accused who were put up before the court at the inquiry stage in which some others were discharged the court could on material available on the record for framing of the charge against the discharged accused also if in the opinion of the court it appeared from the evidence that such person who is not an accused before the court in the said trial but who may be one of the accused at the stage of inquiry and who was earlier discharged has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the other accused against whom the trial was already proceeding. In view of these provisions of law and the various pronouncements of the court, this court held that even the two discharged women could be proceeded against if an application u/s 319 Cr. P.C. has been made and offence against them was made out. Therefore, this court had allowed the application of Rama Sharma and set aside the order dated 7.7.87 by its order dated 12.8.88 and had directed the learned Sessions Judge to pass suitable orders in accordance with law considering the material available before him as he was the sale Judge to consider the evidence when the matter has again come up before him. 15. After the case went back to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IX Patna, then be passed the impugned order dated 5.12.88 which is the subject matter of this revision application. The court below has held that other witnesses were not eye witnesses and only P.W. 8, the complainant was the solitary witness of facts. 15. After the case went back to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IX Patna, then be passed the impugned order dated 5.12.88 which is the subject matter of this revision application. The court below has held that other witnesses were not eye witnesses and only P.W. 8, the complainant was the solitary witness of facts. He held 'from the careful perusal of this general type of evidence I feel that there is no truth in it at all because the allegations are most general. The consistent case of the prosecution is that five accused persons were always making attempt to kill her but they always failed in their aim and object. The story and allegation are formal and just like cinema reel in which hero or heroine faces all odds of life and becomes victorious against a number of persons. I would like to cite some examples put forward by the informant. She bas stated that oil was sprinkled on her and attempt was made to lit fire with intention to kill but she was allowed to change her knightly. Hot water was thrown on her. She applied boroline and became all right. She was assaulted with iron rod but there is no injury certificate to this effect. She has also stated that she was assaulted by the accused persons during her pregnancy and she remained in the hospital but there is no medical certificate to this effect. It is an admitted fact that she delivered two male children in the years 1980 and 1981. She was married on 21.2.1979. Her relation remained cordial in her sasural for two or four months and thereafter period of sorrow and miseries started. But it is very strange to note that during this period she gave birth of her first child on 28.8.80 and the second child on 24.8.81. She has admitted that her husband Braj Bhushan Sharma filed a divorce case on 12.5.82 and the present complaint was filed on 9.6.82. So it is clear that the present case has been definitely filed subsequent to the filing of the divorce case. There are several exhibits on the record and I would like to mention one document (Ext. 5/A). This is a petition by Rama Sharma before the officer-in-charge which is dated 14.2.82 in which she has alleged ill treatment by her husband alone. There are several exhibits on the record and I would like to mention one document (Ext. 5/A). This is a petition by Rama Sharma before the officer-in-charge which is dated 14.2.82 in which she has alleged ill treatment by her husband alone. In view of the discussions made above and Ext. 5/A of the prosecution, I am of the definite view that there is no material at all on record to put accused on these two female trial. Hence the petition under section 319 Cr. P.C. stands dismissed." 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that at the stage of consideration of the application u/s 319 (1) Cr. P.C. the court is to consider if from the material on the record brought in evidence, a prima facie case is made out against the persons not accused before the court and if the evidence is brought that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person is to be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed and it is only after the court proceeds against such person under sub-section (1) then the court, as provided under section 319 (4) Cr. P.C. may order that the proceeding in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh and witnesses shall be re-heard, and in that process the witness will be cross-examined. It does not mean that when there is material on the record to take cognizance the court should consider the sufficiency of the material. The correctness of the evidence will be judged at the final stage when the witness will be cross-examined. At the initial stage the court is not to come at some conclusion about the truth or other-wise of the offence as the same can be tested only by the cross-examination of witnesses in the court which stage has not reached in this case and the court below has disbelieved the statement of the complainant as if it was a final stage of decision of the case. He has referred to various paragraphs specially paragraphs 7 to 20 of the statement or the petitioner which, referred to the various occurrences of different dates in which the accused have committed the offence complained of. He has referred to various paragraphs specially paragraphs 7 to 20 of the statement or the petitioner which, referred to the various occurrences of different dates in which the accused have committed the offence complained of. Learned counsel bas referred to other paragraphs which show that the petitioner has been complaining to the higher authorities also. 17. Learned counsel for the other side has said that the instant complaint has been filed on 19.6.82 after the filing of the divorce case by the husband on 12.5.82. Further it was said that there are various dates of occurrence i.e. 18.8.81, 8.10.81, 5.1.82, 12.2.82, 13.2.82, 25.2.82 and 24.5.82. In some of them ladies have been named but no information has been given to' the authorities in respect of cases in which the ladies were the accused. It was also said that the Sanha refers to the occurrence in respect of male accused and not the females and that the learned Magistrate has referred to Ext. 5/A which is only in respect of the husband and not the female accused. Further it was said that the entire evidence is that the landlord has seen the occurrence but the landlord has not supported the petitioner's case. Lastly it was contended that it was an extraordinary remedy which should have been exercised sparingly which the court below has rightly exercised refusing to allow the application. 18. To appreciate these contentions the evidence of the petitioner will have to be referred. She says that she was married on 21.2.79 and she gave birth to two male children in the years 1980 and 1981, She also says that ill treatment started with her after 3-4 months of the marriage when the demand for more money was made from her and so she brought heavy amounts 4 or 5 times from her mother who ultimately refused to pay anything out of annoyance. On various dates of assault as mentioned above she has given out in detail the participation of the male as well as the female accused. She has specifically said in para 14 that on 18.8.81 Ratna Devi and Pinki Sharma the two women accused had closed the door from inside at the instance of other accused and then Brajbhushan Sharma had sprinkled kerosene oil over her body and tried to lit fire but her cry attracted the people of the Mohalla and so she was saved. In para 15 she has said that on 8.10.81 at about 11 P.M. on account of her refusal to do immoral acts all the five accused had assaulted her by fists and kicks and her children were snatched. Then she telephoned to the police of Gandhi Maidan police station. Then the police came and scolded the accused and so her children were given to her. 19. In para 16 she has said that on 5.1.82 she was assaulted by all the accused by fists and kicks and she informed her mother about the occurrence on telephone. Her brother Sudarshan Buxi then came and with him she went to Gandhi Maidan police station. The police went to the spot. She went to her house along with her brother. Thereafter accused had been giving out threats to kill her. But on 14.1.82 all the accused at about 2 A.M. in order to kill her in collusion took her out from the house. She was assaulted this time also on account of dowry and refusal to do immoral act. But on account of commotion her life was saved. On 12.2.82 in the midnight all the five accused again assaulted her with the intention to kill her. This was done on account of less dowry being given. Pinki Devi bad snatched some hair from her head and Deobrata Sharma had gagged her mouth and threw her on the ground and as earlier decided by them Brajbhushan Sharma attempted to press her neck and Ratan Devi and Dharam Pal had caught hold of her neck. Then she cried out loudly and the landlord carne who scolded the accused. 20. In paragraph 18 she has said that on 13.2.82 Pinki Devi was abusing her badly and said that the complainant should remain alive for some time and in the night she would be finished. Then she became nervous and she telephoned to her mother through the telephone of her landlord. Her brother Sudarshan Buxi came and then she went to police station along with her brother. When she told about the occurrence to the police officer, then it appeared to her that the police would not take any action because it was in collusion with the accused. Then she went with her brother on a scooter to the outer police station of the Bus Stand, where she met the City Superintendent of Police. When she told about the occurrence to the police officer, then it appeared to her that the police would not take any action because it was in collusion with the accused. Then she went with her brother on a scooter to the outer police station of the Bus Stand, where she met the City Superintendent of Police. Then the City S.P. sent the police to the spot but the police did not take any action. In para 19 she has said that all the five accused in collusion with intention to kill her had assaulted her. Deobrata Sharma and Brajbhushan Sharma had assaulted her with iron rod and Brajbhushan Sharma had gagged her mouth and thereafter he had put a paper before her and then all the five accused had said to write what they were saying and they threatened to kill her if she did not write and they also said to write that she was leaving the house on her own accord and that nobody had assaulted her and if after her death the dead body is found by the police or anybody then it may be deemed that she had committed suicide. She wrote all these on account of fear of her life. Again it was on 24.5.82 at about 7 P.M. that Deobrata Sharma and Pinki Devi had sprinkled hot water. She tried to escape but some hot water had fallen on her body and so she felt burning. She changed her clothes and applied boroline. 21. Thus it appears that from paragraphs 14 to 20 she has specifically made allegations against the two women accused. Simply because in Ext. 5/A she has mentioned about the maltreatment only against her husband, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the two women accused. In view of this evidence the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in saying that the allegations were most general and formal just like cinema reel in which hero or heroine face all odds of life and become victorious against the number of persons. Simply because the petitioner could change her knighty and she applied boroline and there was no injury certificate, so the allegations could not be said to be unacceptable. Simply because the petitioner could change her knighty and she applied boroline and there was no injury certificate, so the allegations could not be said to be unacceptable. The petitioner has been suffering the ordeal of this torture as well as danger to her life immediately after 4 months of her marriage and she bas been meeting the demands for money and how long one can meet such a demand is most natural. She was definitely with the accused. It is not in evidence that relation between husband and wife had ceased. Two children were born but the torture upon on her had not stopped. The husband Brajbhushan Sharma had filed a divorce suit on 12.5.82 and so she had to file this complaint on 9.6.82 giving out all the details of danger and assault, maltreatment, extraction of money after her marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the divorce suit has been dismissed on 6.6.87. 22. In this view of the matter the finding of the court below that no case exists against the two women accused or prima facie there is no case against them is not only erroneous but perverse and against the material on the record, and so the impugned order is bad in law. At the stage u/s 319 Cr. P.C. the court is to see if a prima facie case is made out. It has not to consider the details and weigh the same in a sensitive balance but here the court below has tested the same on the standard which is applied at the final stage. The Supreme Court has said in the case of Joginder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another (supra) that a plain reading of section 319(1) which occurs in chapter XXIV dealing with general provisions as to inquiries and trials, clearly shows that it applies to all the courts including a sessions court and as such a sessions court will have the power to add any person, not being the accused before it, but against whom there appears during trial sufficient evidence indicating his involvement in the offence as an accused and direct him to be tried along with the other accused. In the Full Bench decision of Sheikh Latfur Rahman v. State [1985 Cr. In the Full Bench decision of Sheikh Latfur Rahman v. State [1985 Cr. L.J. 1238 at 1241 : 1985 PLJR 640 (FB)] in para 5A it was observed by this court : "Therefore, it seems to follow from the long line of precedents begining with Raghubans Dubey's case that a Magistrate trying a warrant case as also a court of Session having once validly taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of police report (when considering material before it for framing a charge) is not only entitled but, indeed, duty bound to summon a person as an accused to stand trial before it if it is fully satisfied of the existence of a prima facie case against an additional accused who may not have been sent up as such. To us the language of the Final Court, the summoning of the additional accused is part and parcel of the proceeding initiated by the taking of the cognizance of an offence." 23. A division Bench of this court in Dr. Shamim Ahmad Khan v. State of Bihar (1986 Cr. L.J. 1383 has observed in para 6 : "Section 319 does not prescribe that the Court should be convinced or totally satisfied that such a person has committed the offence. It suffices for the exercise of the power that it appears to be so to the Court. This aspect has recently come to be considered by the Full Bench in Lallan Singh v. State of Bihar, Cr. W.J.C. No. 40 of 1981 (R) decided on the 13th Dec., 1985 In the context of S.3(1) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act 1981 where similar terminology has been employed. Consequently it has to be held that the legislature in its wisdom has given a wide ranging power to the Court if it only appears that another person has committed such an offence for which he could be tried together on the basis of the evidence recorded in course of the inquiry or trial against such a person." 24. Consequently it has to be held that the legislature in its wisdom has given a wide ranging power to the Court if it only appears that another person has committed such an offence for which he could be tried together on the basis of the evidence recorded in course of the inquiry or trial against such a person." 24. Though the sufficiency of the material on which the Magistrate has expressed his judicial satisfaction is not to be considered and disturbed by the revisional court but when the matter has come in revision and it appears to the court that the finding arrived at by the trial court in the appreciation of the evidence is against the material on record and is whimsical and not on the basis of judicial application of mind then the court can interfere with such an order of the court below. After the order u/s. 319 Cr. P.C. is passed then notices will be issued to the added accused and as provided u/s. 319 (4)(a) there will be trial afresh against the added accused. Then witnesses will be re-heard and opportunity will be given to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses on behalf of the added accused, although the same witness has already been cross-examined by the other accused. After that the court below will give its own finding accepting or rejecting the case of the prosecution. 25. In this case the material that has been given out by the petitioner may attract several provisions including the provisions contained in lection 498-A I.P.C. which provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine, and cruelty has been defined-any wilful conduce which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman or (b) harassment of the women where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 26. 26. Definitely the evidence as said above is showing that the petitioner has been subjected to cruelty not only by the husband but his father, mother, brother and brother's wife including the two women accused who have been forcing her to commit suicide and were causing grave injury and danger to her life. both mental and physical and they were also harassing her to meet the unlawful demand of dowry which to some extent she had met earlier and now she was not able to meet. In the circumstances as mentioned above the order of the court below is liable to be set aside. Finding a prima facie case against O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 the application for exercising of power by the learned Sessions Judge u/s. 319 Cr. P.C. is entitled to be allowed. 27. In the result this revision application is allowed, and the order of the court dated 5.12.88 is set aside. The court below will add O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 as accused in the session trial. The case is pending since 18.6.82 and the matter is getting delayed on one or the other ground, which is causing harassment not only to the complainant but to other accused also, so it will be in' the interest of justice if the court below tries to dispose of this case in accordance with law as early as possible. The stay order dated 12.5.89 is vacated. Let the lower court's records be sent to the court below as early as possible. Application allowed.