Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 500 (UTT)

Sunita Chauhan v. State of Uttarakhand

2013-07-31

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
ORDER A first information report was lodged by PW 2 Ramesh Kumar against accused Anil Kumar on 09.03.2003, in PS Jwalapur, Haridwar, which was registered as case crime No. 73 of 2003, under Section 364 IPC. When the trial began before learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Haridwar, four prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Thereafter, prosecution moved an application for summoning Sunita Chauhan (present revisionist) as accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed vide order dated 10.07.2008. Aggrieved against the said order, present Criminal Revision was preferred on behalf of Smt. Sunita Chauhan. 2. A bare reading of the first information report will indicate that applicant Sunita Chauhan’s name did not figure in the first information report. Neither the informant, nor any of his witnesses uttered the name of Sunita Chauhan in their statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C. The question of filing of charge-sheet against Sunita Chauhan, therefore, did not arise. 3. Only one accused Anil Kumar was named in the first information report. In all, seven accused persons were charge-sheeted, three of whom were absconders. During the course of trial, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Haridwar, exercised his jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only on the statement of PW 4 Ram Avtar. 4. PW 4 said, in his examination-in-chief, that on 04.03.2003, when he went to Shivlok Colony, he saw that three persons, namely, Anand Sharma, Sunil and Anil severely assaulted a boy. In the meantime, a woman came from inside, to whom PW 4 knew. She gave an iron rod to Anand Sharma. That woman exhorted accused Anand Sharma to kill that boy and throw his dead body in river Ganges. PW 4 disclosed the name of that woman as Sunita Chauhan. Even the examination-in-chief of PW 4 was not over and the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning Sunita Chauhan as an accused. Learned Trial Court derived it’s satisfaction only on the basis of 2-3 sentences that occurred in the examination-in-chief of PW 4. The examination-in-chief itself was not complete, what to talk of the cross-examination of PW 4. Learned Trial Court derived it’s satisfaction only on the basis of 2-3 sentences that occurred in the examination-in-chief of PW 4. The examination-in-chief itself was not complete, what to talk of the cross-examination of PW 4. Learned Trial Court committed mistake in summoning the revisionist to face the trial in exercise of it’s jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as, no accused, who is neither named in the first information report, nor charge-sheeted, can be summoned only on the basis of 3-4 sentences, which surfaced in the examination-in-chief of any prosecution witness. The decision taken by the learned Trial Court was premature. The impgugned order was passed in contravention of the Scheme of Section 319 Cr.P.C. 5. The impugned order cannot sustain and is, therefore, set aside on the ground that the very foundation of summoning the revisionist to face the trial is premature. Criminal Revision is, therefore, allowed. Impugned order dated 10.07.2008 is set aside qua Sunita Chauhan (revisionist). 6. It is, however, made clear that this Order will not come in the way of the trial court to summon the accused persons, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., if and when the occasion so arises. In other words, if it appears to learned Additional Sessions Judge 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 trial court may proceed against such person with the offence which he or she appears to have committed. Petition allowed.