Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 847 (RAJ)

Maya Devi & anr v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-09

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN II

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This revision petition under Section 397/401 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the order dated 22nd November 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.1, Hanumangarh in Cr. Case No.40/2007- State v. Krishan Lal whereby the court below dismissed application moved by the petitioners under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The concise facts of case are that a complaint was filed by the petitioner No.2- Rameshwar Lal against Mahendra Singh, Banto Devi, Munshi Ram, Sita Ram, Dara Singh, Bhadar Ram and 5-7 other persons, alleging commission of offence under sections 366, 368, 376 and 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(vii) and 2(v) of the SC/ST Act against prosecutrix-petitioner No.1- Maya Devi. However, after due investigation, Police did not file challan against Banto Devi and Sita Ram. 4. It is contended that in her court statements, the prosecutrix alleged specific allegations in respect of Banto Devi and Sita Ram. Despite specific allegations since no charge-sheet was filed against Banto Devi and Sita Ram, therefore, petitioner filed an application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code for adding them as accused in the matter before the learned trial court. However, learned court below vide impugned order dated 22nd November 2007 dismissed the application moved under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code. Aggrieved thereby, present Revision Petition has been preferred. 5. It is contended that though the prosecutrix in her statements under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate as well as in her evidence before the trial court made specific allegations in respect of Banto Devi and Sita Ram yet the Police did not file challan against them and not arrayed them as accused in the matter. There is sufficient evidence on record against respondents No.2 and 3 for commission of offence under sections 366 and 368 Indian Penal Code. It is further contended that the learned court below erred in weighing evidence at the stage of deciding application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code. 6. There is sufficient evidence on record against respondents No.2 and 3 for commission of offence under sections 366 and 368 Indian Penal Code. It is further contended that the learned court below erred in weighing evidence at the stage of deciding application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 supported the order passed by the court below and submitted that the learned court below found no sufficient and compelling reasons for exercise of powers under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code and hence, rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner by reasoned order. 7. In support of their contention, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Singh and others v. Ram Niwas and another, 2009 (Suppl) Cr.L.R (SC) 518 , wherein their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court held that the extra ordinary powers under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code for summoning any person as an accused can only be exercised where on the basis of evidence brought on record it 'appears' that the person concerned has committed an offence and mere existence of a 'prima facie' case would not be sufficient to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code. It is necessary for the court to arrive at a satisfaction that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction of the person sought to be added as accused in the case. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, perused the impugned order and scanned through the record of the case. 9. From the order impugned dated 22nd November 2007, it is clear that upon considering the evidence brought by the prosecution, the court below found itself not satisfied about any 'prima facie' case as alleged against respondents Banto Devi and Sita Ram. Thus, after considering the evidence adduced before the court below, it did not 'appear' to the court below that the respondents Banto Devi and Sita Ram committed the offence alleged against them and hence, the court below rightly declined to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code and rejected the application of the petitioner. 10. Thus, after considering the evidence adduced before the court below, it did not 'appear' to the court below that the respondents Banto Devi and Sita Ram committed the offence alleged against them and hence, the court below rightly declined to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code and rejected the application of the petitioner. 10. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find no error in the order dated 22nd November 2007 passed by learned court below in rejecting application moved under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code. In the result, present Revision Petition against aforesaid order passed by the court below has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. *******