Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 813 (MP)

Karan Singh v. State of M. P.

2001-11-08

CHANDRESH BHUSHAN

body2001
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 4.12.2000 of the Special Judge, Gwalior, in Sessions Trial No. 12912000, refusing his prayer to imp-lead the respondents No.2 to 8 as co-accused under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant-petitioner has preferred this revision petition. Brief facts leading to this petition are that three persons were facing trial before the learned Special Judge for commission of offences under sections 302, 307/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In that case, besides Karan Singh, who was the complainant and brother of the deceased, prosecution had cited four other persons, viz., (1) Maniram, (2) Jagdish, (3) Indrajit and (4) Chandan Singh, as witnesses. In their statements, these four persons, had named the respondents No. 2 to 8 also as accomplices. The incident was said to have taken place on 31.10.1998 and the statements of the said witnesses were recorded for the first time on 26.9.1999. The trial of the said three persons is almost over and now the case is at the stage of judgment. It was after the examination of ten witnesses that the application under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the prosecution and thereafter, only three more witnesses have been examined and the evidence was over. According to the petitioner, it was only the statements of the said four persons on the basis of which the three persons facing trial were challenged and when those four persons had also named the respondents No; 2 to 8 then there was no reason why these .seven persons should not have been imp-leaded as co-accused. When the statement of the said' four persons was the basis of prosecution then the prosecution's application for imp-leading them as co-accused should have been allowed. The trial Court having failed to do so, the petitioner prays that the impugned order be set aside and. directions be issued to imp-lead the said seven persons as co-accused. . With respect to addition of co-accused persons in the trial, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another [2000(2) Crimes 23 (SC)] has laid down that the discretionary power under the provisions of section 319, CrPC, should be invoked to achieve criminal justice. . With respect to addition of co-accused persons in the trial, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another [2000(2) Crimes 23 (SC)] has laid down that the discretionary power under the provisions of section 319, CrPC, should be invoked to achieve criminal justice. 'A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had· spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other persons." It was further observed by the Supreme Court that the Court, while deciding whether to invoke the power under section 319 of the Code, must address itself about the other constraints imposed by the first limb of sub-section (4), that proceedings in respect of newly added persons shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-examined. The whole proceedings must be re-commenced from the beginning of the trial, summon the witnesses once again and examine them and cross-examine them in order to reach the stage where it had reached earlier. If the witnesses already examined are quite large in number, the Court must seriously consider whether the object sought to be achieved by such exercise is· worth wasting the whole labour already undertaken. Unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused, ending in conviction of the offence concerned, we would. say that the Court should refrain from adopting such course of action. . In the instant case, none of the said four witnesses was an eye-witness. The only eye-witness in the case was the petitioner himself and he has specifically said in the first information report (dehati-nalishi) that the incident was committed by unknown persons but he can identify them because he had very well seen them. It is not disputed that the petitioner was resident of the same village of which the proposed seven respondents were residents, i.e., the village Dadorai. In view of this fact, it cannot be said that there was a reasonable prospect of the case ending in their conviction and the conclusion reached by the learned Special Judge appears to be very reasonable one. In view of this fact, it cannot be said that there was a reasonable prospect of the case ending in their conviction and the conclusion reached by the learned Special Judge appears to be very reasonable one. Moreover, in the instant case, the prosecution evidence is already over and the case was only at the stage of judgment and, therefore, though there may be some suspicion against the respondents but the same was not sufficient to hold that there was a reasonable prospect of their conviction. In this case, the proceedings have reached almost final stage and any addition of co-accused would lead to waste of the whole proceedings already undertaken. Considering all this, the order of the trial Court appears· to be a proper one and it deserves no interference. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed.