Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 174 (MP)

Uma Panwar v. State of M. P.

2002-02-14

S.L.KOCHAR

body2002
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 8-1-2002 passed by Special Judge, Shajapur in Special Case No. 13/01 allowing the application filed by the State against the applicant under Section 319, Cr. PC for proceedings against them as accused in trial. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case, in brief is that on 29th October, 2000, in the night, one Ramcharan Malviya was done to death. Charge-sheet was filed only against Ashok Parmar, Baijnath Singh and Manoharsingh. They are facing trial before Special Judge, Shajapur. Against these accused persons, charges were framed for the offence under Sections 120, 302, 302/34, IPC as well as under Section 3 (ii) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In the charge-sheet, total 36 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. Out of which 22 witnesses have been examined. Out of remaining witnesses, very few are to be examined by the prosecution as these are formal witnesses. At this stage, the State has filed an application against the present applicants praying for unpleading them as accused as per provision under Section 319, Cr. PC on the basis of the statements of Prafulla Khanna (P. W. 8), Ramsingh (P. W. 10), Rajaram (P. W. 11), Babulal Malviya (P. W. 16), J. P. Sharma (P. W. 18), R,s. Parmar (P. W. 19) and Gajendra Mathur (P. W. 2 ). The Trial Court, after hearing the parties allowed the application of the State and ordered for issuance of bailable warrant in the sum pf Rs. 500/- each for their appearance before the Court. ( 3. ) COUNSEL for the applicants submitted that even if complete statements of the aforesaid witnesses are accepted there is no material worth for invoking provision under Section 319, Cr. PC. There is no iota of evidence in the statements of these witnesses on the basis of which it could be informed that they had entered into conspiracy for commission of murder of Ramcharan Malviya along with other accused persons who are facing trial. Copies of the statements of these witnesses have been filed, they are taken on record. ( 4. ) COUNSEL for the applicants relied on a judgment reported in AIR 2000 SC 1127 (Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another ). Copies of the statements of these witnesses have been filed, they are taken on record. ( 4. ) COUNSEL for the applicants relied on a judgment reported in AIR 2000 SC 1127 (Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another ). The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has held as under:-" but even then, what is conferred on the Court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words the Court may proceed against such person. The discretionary power to conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against another whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. 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 duly on the Court to proceed against other persons. " ( 5. ) THE Deputy AG. Mr. Desai, appearing for the State has submitted that in view of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses recorded during the course of trial, the Trial Court was justified in issuing process against the applicants/women for their appearance and facing trial. ( 6. ) HAVING considered the rival contentions and after perusal of the statement of the aforesaid witnesses, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court has not exercised discretionary jurisdiction legally for arrying the applicants as accused conferred on it, as per provision under Section 319, Cr. PC. ( 7. ) ON the basis of the stray allegation levelled by the witnesses against the accused/applicants, the Trial Court should not have proceeded under Section 319, Cr. PC. The Court must have reasonable satisfaction on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. After going through the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, none has given any evidence, which may make out prima facie case for facing trial of the present applicants for the offence under Sections 302/120-B, IPC. PC. The Court must have reasonable satisfaction on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. After going through the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, none has given any evidence, which may make out prima facie case for facing trial of the present applicants for the offence under Sections 302/120-B, IPC. For instance Rajaram (P. W. 11) has given the statement before the Trial Court that in a meeting of Gram Panchayat and workers of Anganwadi present applicants were saying loudly to Ramcharan Malviya that he will not see 8th of June and they will see him. Thereafter, Ramcharan Malviya left the meeting along with Ashok Kumar Parmnar. This witness has been confronted with the case diary statement Ex. D-6. There is absolutely no mention of the name of Ramcharan Malviya in Ex. D-6. The alleged incident had taken place on 29th October, 2000 much after alleged meeting in which these two women were present and saying about Ramcharan Malviya. The other witnesses have not even stated this kind of allegation against the applicants. Mere reference of the name of the applicants in the statements does not make out a case for proceedings under Section 319, Cr. PC at such a belated stage when the Trial Court will have to commence de novo trial after appearance of the applicants. ( 8. ) THIS Court has asked the State counsel time and again to point any data or material on the basis of which reasonable likelihood of the applicants being convicted in an offence in connection with murder of Ramcharan with the aid of Section 120-B, IPC, could be predicated but he is not able to lay hands in such evidence. The Supreme Court in the State of Kamataka v. L. Muniswami ( AIR 1977 SC 1489 ) has held as under :- "a few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution proposes to rely woefully inadequate for connecting the respondents with the crime, however, skillfully one may attempt to weave those bits into a presentable whole. " ( 9. ) THE same situation is present in the instant case. Even after relying on the complete deposition of the aforesaid witnesses, there is no material on which any Tribunal could reasonably convict the applicants for any offence. ( 10. " ( 9. ) THE same situation is present in the instant case. Even after relying on the complete deposition of the aforesaid witnesses, there is no material on which any Tribunal could reasonably convict the applicants for any offence. ( 10. ) LOOKING to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and the Supreme Court judgment (supra) laying down the principle for invoking provisions under Section 319, Cr. PC, the order passed by the Trial Court is not sustainable. It is accordingly quashed and this revision petition is allowed. Certified copy be given in three days on usual charges.