Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1171 (RAJ)

Manish Puri v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-20

ATUL KUMAR JAIN

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - When the impugned order under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was passed on 15.12.2011 by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No. 5/2007 under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A l.P.C., the case was pending in that Court and now that Sessions Case No. 5/2007 has been decided on 27.6.2013 by the said Court and one of the two accused-persons, namely, Smt. Mahakori W/o Prabhu Ram has been acquitted by that Court from the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. but another accused charge-sheeted in the said case, Vinod Puri S/o Prabhu Ram has been convicted by that Court under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A I.P.C., though he has been acquitted from the charge of Section 309 l.P.C. 2. By the impugned order dated 15.12.2011, the said Trial Court had taken cognizance against Manish (brother-in-law of deceased) and Phoolan @ Phoolmati (sister-in-law of the deceased) under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 l.P.C. after examination often witnesses. In the said case accused-persons Vinod Puri and Smt. Mahakori were being prosecuted at that stage for allegedly killing Smt. Kavita and her son Nitin by cutting their nerves/veins by a blade and then throttling both of them by a chunni' (a long piece of cloth). I have gone though the statements of aforesaid ten witnesses, namely, PW-1 Rameshwar Das, PW-2 Rohtash Kumar, PW-3 Anil Kumar, PW-4 Ms. Kela, PW-5 Suresh, PW-6 Satvir, PW-7 Bharat Singh, PW-8 Mahaveer, PW-9 Bheem Singh and PW-10 Krishna Kumar. There is almost no evidence against Manish Puri and Phoolmati @ Phoolan in the statements of these ten witnesses so as to frame a charge in future against them. 3. 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 Punjab & 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. 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 are as follows: (1) Dharmapl & Ors. v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 148/2013 decided on 25.7.2013 (2) Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar, (1993) 2 SCC 16 (3) Rakesh v. State of Haryana, 2001 Cri.L.J. (SC) 3511 . 4. 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 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 be achieved by exercise under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is worth wasting the whole labour already under taken. 5. Thus, the law has been settled that in which cases, cognizance under Section 319, Cr.P.C. will be justified and in which cases it will not be justified. 6. 5. Thus, the law has been settled that in which cases, cognizance under Section 319, Cr.P.C. will be justified and in which cases it will not be justified. 6. What to talk of grave suspicion, even a case of suspicion is not made out against the two accused-persons in the present 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 ten witnesses had already been examined in the case. If the cognizance is taken against the two accused-petitioners under Section 319, Cr.P.C. it will be a wasting of the whole labour already undertaken. This fact also cannot be ignored at this stage that trial against accused Vinod Puri and Smt. Mahakori has already been culminated on 27.6.2013 and Smt. Mahakori has already been acquitted from the charges of Sections 498-A and 304-B l.P.C. No doubt even after the judgment pronounced against the Vinod Puri and Smt. Mahakori, the impugned order dated 15.12.2011 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu can be upheld by this Court, but there is no material on the basis of which the impugned order may deserve to be upheld. In this matter, the proceedings against the accused-petitioners Manish Puri and Smt. Phoolmati in the Trial Court had also been stayed by order dated 16.1.2012 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In the circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 15.12.2011 passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No. 5/2007, whereby the cognizance under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A l.P.C. had been taken against the accused-petitioners deserves to be quashed which is hereby quashed.The revision petition as well as the stay petition stand disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the Trial within five days by registered post.Petition allowed. *******