Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1692 (RAJ)

JAI PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2007-09-07

M.VENKATESWARA REDDY

body2007
Judgment ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 15. 06. 2007 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Kishangarhbas, district Alwar whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application filed under Section 319 Cr. P. C. and has taken cognizance against the petitioners of the offence under section 302, 120b IPC. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the accused Suresh Kumar and Pawan Kumar were challenged under Sections 302, 201 ipc for the murder of one Ram Bhagat. The case was committed to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, kishangarhbas where charges were framed against the accused Suresh Kumar and pawan Kumar under Sections 302, 201 IPC. Learned trial Court recorded the statements of 13 witnesses and thereafter an application under Section 319 Cr. P. C. was moved. Learned trial court vide impugned order took cognizance against the petitioners of the offence under Sections 302, 120-B IPC and issued arrest warrants against them. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners have filed this revision petition. ( 3 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned public prosecutor and learned counsels for the complainant. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court cannot be permitted to conduct a fishing enquiry and since there is no reasonable possibility of conviction of the petitioners the order of the trial court deserves to be set aside. He has placed reliance on JT 2007 (5) SC 567, (2005)12 SCC 327 and JT 2000 (2) SC 531. ( 5 ) LEARNED public prosecutor and learned counsels for the complainant have supported the impugned order. ( 6 ) THE basic requirement for invoking section 319 Cr. P. C. is that it should appear to the court from the evidence collected during inquiry or trial that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. Mere doubt is not enough. The court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected that the other person has committed an offence and for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused. In Municipal corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors. Mere doubt is not enough. The court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected that the other person has committed an offence and for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused. In Municipal corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors. , Honble Apex Court has held as under: "in these circumstances, therefore, 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 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. But, we would hasten to add that this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. More than this we would not like to say anything further at this stage. We leave the entire matter to the discretion of the court concerned so that it may act according to law. " ( 7 ) KEEPING the above legal position in mind let us have a glance at the evidence on which the learned trial court has based its order. Vijay Singh PW4 has stated: Ranjeet PW5 has deposed: Ramesh Kumar PW6 has said: Kishan Kumar PW7 has stated: Umesh Singh PW8 has stated: ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the evidence available on the record, it cannot be said that the trial court is conducting a fishing inquiry or that the trial Court has exercised its discretion illegally as there is no possibility of conviction so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the high Court. When the trial court does not appear to have committed an error or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned order, the revision petition cannot succeed. ( 9 ) AFTER perusing carefully the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, i am of the view that the facts of the instant case are different and, therefore, those judgments do not render any assistance to the petitioners. ( 10 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, this revision petition fails which stands dismissed accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.