Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1622 (RAJ)

Jaswant Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-09-16

ATUL KUMAR JAIN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This is a case which relates to interpretation of Section 319, Cr.P.C. and powers of the Court thereunder. Following rulings are relevant here: (1) Michael Machado v. C.B.I., 2000 Cr.L.R.(SC) 265 . 2. In this case, it was held that if Courts is not satisfied that there is ground to proceed against another person then there is no compelling duty to proceed against him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It was also held in this case that powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are extra-ordinary powers which are conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly only when compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other persons against whom action has not been taken. It was also held that "unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly added accused ending in conviction of offence concerning we would say that the Court should refrain for adopting such course of action." It was also held that suspicion only will not be sufficient to hold that there is reasonable prospect of conviction. In this case it was held that proceedings in respect of the newly added persons shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-examined. The whole proceedings will have to be recommenced from the beginning of the trial. If the witnesses already examined are in quite a large number then the Court must seriously consider whether the objects sought to b e achieved by exercise under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is worth wasting the whole labour already under taken. (2) Kailash v. State of Rajasthan, 2008-09 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 539 . 3. In this case it was held that powers under Section 319, Cr.P.C. should be exercised very sparingly and with caution and in that case another case of Hon'ble Supreme Court, namely Municipal Corporation, Delhi v. Ramkrishna Rohatgi, (1983) 1 SCC 1 , was referred, wherein it was held that Court must arrive at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned in all likelihood would be convicted. This case was also a case under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 4. This case was also a case under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 4. In the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have to examine the validity of the order dated 27.6.2007 by which the-application filed by complainant Naib Singh under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 13/2005 (relating to F.I.R. No. 98/2002 of Police Station, Muklava) pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar was dismissed. The complainant Naib Singh had filed a criminal revision against the order dated 27.6.2007 in this Court and an stay order was passed on 20.7.2007 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this.Court whereby the proceedings of the trial Court were ordered to be stayed. 5. In last six years, complainant Naib Singh has expired and his son Jaswant Singh has been allowed to prosecute this criminal revision in the capacity of legal representative of deceased Naib Singh. 6. I have heard both the parties. In this case, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed in the trial Court after examination of the witnesses PW-1 Naib Singh (since deceased), PW-2 Jaswant Singh, PW-3 Tulsi Ram, PW-4 Mohan Singh, PW-5 Panna Ram, PW-6 Krishan Lal, PW-7 Avtar Singh and PW-8 Sarjeet Singh in the trial Court PW-8 Sarjeet Singh does not inculpate non-petitioner No. 2 to non-petition No. 5 in the incident of beating etc. and he was found hostile by the prosecution. Same is the case of PW-7 Avtar Singh, PW-6 Krishan Lal, PW-5 Panna Ram and PW-4 Mohan Singh also. They also do not inculpate non-petitioner No. 2 to non-petitioner No. 5. 7. Star witness in the incident was injured Naib Singh (PW-1) who has already expired. PW-3 Tulsi Ram is not said to be an eye-witness of the incident. Thus, the whole case at this stage hinges upon the statement of PW-2 Jaswant Singh. At this stage, only on the statement of Jaswant Singh, it cannot be said that if cognizance is taken against Gurmaii Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Surendra Singh and Gyan Singh, then there will be any reasonable prospects of their conviction. Only on the basis of grave suspicion cognizance under Section 307 I.P.C. etc. at this stage and that too after death of principal witness (injured Naib Singh) will not be justified looking to the principles propounded in the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned earlier. 8. Only on the basis of grave suspicion cognizance under Section 307 I.P.C. etc. at this stage and that too after death of principal witness (injured Naib Singh) will not be justified looking to the principles propounded in the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned earlier. 8. Hence, this criminal revision petition filed by Naib Singh (since deceased) and continuously prosecuted by his son Jaswant Singh does not deserve acceptance which is hereby dismissed, i he record of the trial Court has already been sent back to that Court on 12.8.2013. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court immediately.Revision dismissed. *******