Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 149 (RAJ)

Rukma Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2011-01-19

MEENA V.GOMBER

body2011
JUDGMENT (1) THE revisionist, by way of this revision petition has assailed the order of Additional Sessions Judge dated 14.12.2010, whereby her application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. seeking summoning Nancha Ram and Lilu Ram for standing trial, had been rejected. (2) HEARD the learned counsel for the revisionist as also learned Public Prosecutor for the State non-petitioner. Before averting to the point in issue in this revision, I feel necessary to briefly look into the facts of the case. The facts in brief are that on 6.2.2010 the revisionist lodged a report-Exhibit P15 at Police Station Neem Ka Thana (Sikar) against five persons namely, Hira Lal, Mohar Singh, Ranveer Jat (son of Kaluram), Nancha Ram and Lilu Ram, for committing the murder of her husband Birdhi Chand and destroying the evidence by throwing his body in the well. (3) THE case was registered under Sections 302, 201, 143 and 120B, IPC, but after investigation the charge-sheet was filed only against three persons namely Hira Lal, Mohar Singh and Ranveer Singh for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34, IPC. (4) THE case was committed to the Sessions and the trial commenced. It is after the examination of 26 witnesses that the application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. came to be moved by the complainant (revisionist herein) seeking summoning of Nancha Ram and Lilu Ram, for taking cognizance and commencing trial against them. THE record shows that out of 27 witnesses, 26 have already been examined. THE revisionist has based her prayer on the statements of PW6, PW8, PW12, PW13, PW 19 and PW20 besides her own statement as PW10. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The story, as per prosecution, is that on 22.1.2010 the deceased had gone to cast his vote at 9.00 a.m. to Puranabas. Ranvir Saain, Sarpanch, had won the election and after the declaration of results, the deceased along with Mohar Singh, Hira Lal and Ranveer Jat son of Kaluram, was dropped by Sarpanch Ranvir Saain and Suresh Jakhad at Ghasi's shop at about 1.30 a.m., who gave them all liquor which they consumed and that her husband did not come home. Ranvir Saain, Sarpanch, had won the election and after the declaration of results, the deceased along with Mohar Singh, Hira Lal and Ranveer Jat son of Kaluram, was dropped by Sarpanch Ranvir Saain and Suresh Jakhad at Ghasi's shop at about 1.30 a.m., who gave them all liquor which they consumed and that her husband did not come home. On enquiring, she was told by Banwarilal PW6 and Chhajuram PW1 that Lilu Ram and Nancha Ram were getting their bike filled with petrol and met them at Rameshwar Mehla's shop, who told Banwarilal that the bike will be driven the whole night. Further that the dead body of her husband was found after three days in the well. (5) THE only basis of her suspicion was that an route their home, PW6 Banwarilal and PW1 Chhajuram met Nancha Ram and Lilu Ram who told Banwarilal that they were getting complete tank filled as the bike was to be driven the whole night. THE revisionist had doubt on Nancha Ram and Lilu Ram, because they were following the jeep in which deceased Birdhi Chand along with Hiralal, Mohar Singh and Ranveer Singh, was sitting. (6) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, having heard both the parties on the application, discussing the evidence on record, and relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ramkishan Rastogi, AIR 1983 SC 67 , Guriya alias Tabassum Tauquir and others v. State of Bihar and another, 2007 CRLR (SC) 820 : ( AIR 2008 SC 95 ) and Sarabjit and another v. State of Punjab and another, 2009 CRLR (SC) 573 : ( AIR 2009 SC 2792 : 2009 Cri LJ 3978), dismissed the application vide impugned order. The revisionist, aggrieved by the said order, approached this court by way of present revision, inter alia, on the ground that learned trial court had failed to appreciate the evidence which indicated involvement of Nancha Ram and Lilu Ram in the commission of crime. (7) THE law in this area is well settled. As it has been time and again held by Apex Court that the power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, which 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. (7) THE law in this area is well settled. As it has been time and again held by Apex Court that the power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, which 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. Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (here in after referred as 'the Code') reads as under : "Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.- (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced." (8) AS is clear from above, the words used are "could be tried together with the accused" and not "must be" - meaning thereby that the provisions are only directory and not mandatory. Before an order under this Section is passed, the court should satisfy itself about the evidence. The nature of evidence should be such which would make out grounds for exercise of extraordinary power. The materials brought before the court must also be such which would satisfy the court that it is one of those cases where its jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly. The test laid down by Apex Court in Sarabjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 2009 SC 2792 , is as under : "An order under S.319, therefore, should not be passed only because the first informant or one of the witnesses seeks to implicate other person(s). Sufficient and cogent reasons are required to be assigned by the Court so as to satisfy the ingredients of the provisions. Mere ipse dixit would not serve the purpose. Sufficient and cogent reasons are required to be assigned by the Court so as to satisfy the ingredients of the provisions. Mere ipse dixit would not serve the purpose. Such an evidence must be convincing one at least for the purpose of exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. For the aforementioned purpose, the Courts are required to apply stringent tests; one of the tests being whether evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned." Further that – "A higher standard is to be set up for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction under S.319. Unless a higher standard for the purpose of forming an opinion to summon a person as an additional accused is laid down, the ingredients thereof, viz., (i) an extraordinary case and (ii) a case for sparingly exercise of jurisdiction, would not be satisfied." (9) IN this backdrop, if the case in hand is examined, I do not find that this was a fit case wherein such an extraordinary power should have been used. (10) I have gone through the statements of PW6 Banwarilal, PW8 Dharmaram, PW10 Rukma Devi, PW12 Shankarlal, PW13 Rakshpal, PW19 Sohanlal, and PW20 Gokulchand and I find that the learned Sessions Judge has elaborately discussed the evidence in this regard. PW 12 Shankarlal, who is the brother of deceased has stated that the deceased was with Mohar Singh, Hira Lal and Ranveer Singh son of Kaluram. They all went to Ranvir Saain Sarpanch's house. The witness also went there. Ranvir Saain made Mohar Singh, Hira Lal, Ranveer and Birdhi Chand sit in the jeep. Suresh Jakhad also accompanied them. Nancha Ram and Lilu Ram also came on motorcycle on the path leading to his house. Thereafter this witness claims to have gone back home. None of the witnesses claims to have seen Nancha Ram and Lilu Ram beating the deceased. Just because the two were going on the bike on the path behind the jeep, does not in any manner link them with the crime. None of the witnesses claims to have seen the deceased last with these two persons. Just because they filled the petrol tank of the bike or that they drove on the path, does not link them with the crime. Moreover, Banwarilal PW6, only states that he met Nancha Ram and greeted him. None of the witnesses claims to have seen the deceased last with these two persons. Just because they filled the petrol tank of the bike or that they drove on the path, does not link them with the crime. Moreover, Banwarilal PW6, only states that he met Nancha Ram and greeted him. At that time one child was also accompanying Nancha Ram and except greeting, there was no other conversation. With this kind of evidence, I do not find that the nature of evidence is such which would reasonable lead to conviction of Nancha Ram and Lilu Ram, the persons sought to be summoned for standing trial. For the foregoing reasons, this revision is found to be devoid of merit, which deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.