Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1170 (RAJ)

Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-20

ATUL KUMAR JAIN

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - In the decision given by the Five Judges Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court on 10.1.2014 in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjabi Ors., 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 310 , it was held that degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning of a person under Section 319, Cr.P.C. would be the same as for framing a charge. A difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning an original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and then in the course of such trial, materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Since, summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial, therefore, the degree of satisfaction of summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different. Other relevant cases on this point areas follows: (1) Dharmpal & Ors. v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 148/2003 decided on 25.7.2013 by the Apex Court. (2) Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar, (1993) 2 SCC 16 . (3) Rakesh v. State of Harvana, 2001 Cri.L.J. (SC) 3511 . 2. In the case of Michael Machado v. CBI, 2000 Cr.L.R. SC 265 , it was held that if Court 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 and only if 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 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 reexamined. The whole proceedings will have to be recommenced from the beginning of the trial. In this case it was held that proceedings in respect of the newly added persons shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses reexamined. 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 be achieved by exercise under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is worth wasting the whole labour already under taken. 3. Thus, the law has been settled that in what cases, cognizance under Section 319, Cr.P.C. will be justified and in what cases it will not be justified. 4. In the case in hand, Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the complainant Ram Lal against the order dated 17.8.2012 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 3/2012 titled as State v. Pawan Kumar , whereby that Court has dismissed the application filed under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for summoning the accused-persons, (1) Ms. Lalita, (2) Dinesh, and (3) Smt. Amarjeet Kaur by taking cognizance against them for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376/149 and 368 l.P.C. 5. I have perused the impugned order and I have also perused the statements of PW-7 Vimal Kumar and PW-10 the prosecutrix in particular, along with statements of PW-1 Jitendra, PW-2 Gopal Darji, PW-3 Raj Kumar, PW-4 Dr. H.L. Mehra, PW-5 Dr. Vijyant Nirvan, PW-6 Dr. Rakesh Gaur, PW-8 Ram Lal, PW-9 Khem Chand and PW-11 Vimal Kumar. I fully agree with the reasonings and the logic given by the Trial Court in its order dated 12.8.2012 whereby that Court has dismissed the prayer of the complainant filed under Section 319, Cr.P.C. This Court is not hopeful that there is any reasonable prospect of the case as against the proposed accused-persons (1) Ms. Lalita, (2) Dinesh, and (3) Smt. Amarjeet Kaur ending in conviction of offence concerning. What to talk of grave suspicion, even a case of suspicion is also not made out against the said three proposed accused-persons. The proceedings in respect of the proposed accused-persons will have to be commenced afresh and the witnesses will have to be re-examined if cognizance against them is taken by the Court and this fact also cannot be ignored that about eleven witnesses have already been examined in the case. The proceedings in respect of the proposed accused-persons will have to be commenced afresh and the witnesses will have to be re-examined if cognizance against them is taken by the Court and this fact also cannot be ignored that about eleven witnesses have already been examined in the case. This Court cannot ignore the fact that if cognizance is taken against the said three accused-persons under Section 319, Cr.P.C., would it be worth wasting the whole labour already undertaken. No doubt, the complainant wants this Court to take cognizance against the proposed additional accused-persons but in this process, he may lose the case against the accused Pawan Kumar also and so in the interests of justice, it can be said that this revision petition is devoid of any force and particularly after perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-10), this revision petition appears to be bereft of any force which deserves dismissal and which is hereby dismissed and the impugned order dated 17.8.2012 passed by the Court below is upheld. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court immediately by speed post.Revision dismissed. *******