Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1567 (RAJ)

Jitendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2009-07-09

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner against the order dated 08.04.2009, whereby an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. had been rejected. 2. The case of the prosecution is that an FIR was lodged by Jitendra Singh, petitioner, brother of the deceased, on 14.01.2008 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. In the said First Information Report, allegations had been made in respect of harassment and demand of dowry, against the husband Ashok Singh, father-in-law Brikh Bhan Singh and mother-in-law Draupati. After lodging of the report, the investigation commenced and the police filed challan against the husband Ashok Singh for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and as against the other accused persons investigation was kept pending under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. In the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation, such as, Smt. Usha Devi, etc. allegations had been made against all the three persons. During the course of trial, the statements of material witnesses were recorded on 22.09.2008 onwards as PW-9, etc. After recording of the statements of Sonu Devi (PW- 14) on 11.02.2009, the complainant-petitioner moved the instant application under Section 319 Cr.PC. for impleading non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 as accused in the present case. The learned trial court, by its impugned order dated 08.04.2009, had dismissed the application. Hence, this revision petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner has submitted that in the First Information Report, non-petitioner No. 2 and 3 have been named and allegations were made against them. Further, he has submitted that during the course of investigation, the material witnesses of the prosecution had made allegations against non-petitioner. According to him, the Investigation Agency had erroneously filed challan only against the husband Ashok Singh and kept the investigation pending against the other accused persons. He has also submitted that the prosecution witnesses have deposed before the trial court against non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 and, as such, they ought to have been impleaded as accused persons and application under Section 319 Cr.PC. should have been allowed. Referring to the principle of law according to which a person is to be impleaded as an accused during the course of trial when evidence is so recorded, he has placed reliance on the case of Mohd. should have been allowed. Referring to the principle of law according to which a person is to be impleaded as an accused during the course of trial when evidence is so recorded, he has placed reliance on the case of Mohd. Umar Bhai v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 39 and also Ram Pal Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2009) 4 SCC 423 . 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 and 3 has supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. Further, he has submitted that the evidence on record, including the one recorded before the learned trial court is not sufficient to hold that a prima facie case is made out against non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 so as to implead them as accused in the trial. He has further submitted that after keeping the investigation pending against non-petitioner No. 2 and 3, the Investigation Agency submitted a Final Report in the matter. Later on, a protest petition had been filed by the complainant-petitioner and the same is still pending. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the rival parties. In the instant case, the non-petitioner No. 2 and 3 were named in the First Information Report and also in the statements of some of the witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. But, they were not named as accused in the charge-sheet and the Investigation Agency had kept the investigation pending against them, under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. During the course of trial, the allegations against the non-petitioner No. 2 and 3 had been made by Usha Devi (PW-9), Meena Devi (PW-10), Jitendra Singh (PW-11), Madhu (PW-13) and Sonu (PW-14). The evidence on record, as on date, prima facie satisfies to implead the non-petitioner No. 2 and 3 as accused and proceed against them. It is to be noted that in this case, the deceased Sanju @ Reena had died because of burn injuries, which were 100%. The death had occurred after about four years of the marriage. The prosecution case also is that there has been demand of one lac rupees and one motorcycle from the deceased and she was beaten by the aforesaid members of the in-laws family. 6. The death had occurred after about four years of the marriage. The prosecution case also is that there has been demand of one lac rupees and one motorcycle from the deceased and she was beaten by the aforesaid members of the in-laws family. 6. The principle of law is well settled that all that is required by the Court for invoking its powers under Section 319 Cr.PC. is to be satisfied that from the evidence adduced before it, a person against whom no charge had been framed, but whose complicity appears to be clear, should be tried together with the accused. Keeping in view the said principle, it is clear in the instant case that the non-petitioner No. 2 and 3 had been named in the First Information Report and allegations had been made against them by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, during the course of trial. In my considered opinion, there is sufficient evidence on record to implead the non-petitioners as accused persons. The learned trial court has erred in considering the matter as if it was finally deciding the case on the conclusion of the trial, which is not the stage at present. Therefore, it would be just and proper that the non-petitioner No. 2 and 3 be summoned to face trial alongwith other t co-accused. 7. Consequently, this revision petition stands allowed and order dated 08.04.2009 passed by the learned trial court is hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the application filed by the complainant-petitioner under Section 5 319 Cr.PC. to array non-petitioner No. 2 and 3 as accused and to take cognizance against them for the offence under Section 304-A and 498-A IPC is allowed. The learned trial court to summon them to face the trial.Revision Allowed. *******