Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 827 (RAJ)

Pawan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2014-04-02

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner complainant has approached this Court by way of the instant revision assailing the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 47/2004 whereby the I application filed by the petitioner to summon the respondents No. 2 to 5 as I additional accused in the sessions case going on against one Ramprasad for the I offences under Sections 498-A and 306 l.P.C. was rejected. 2. Before proceeding to consider the facts of the instant revision, it is necessary to note here that Pawan Kumar is the complainant of the case. His sister Smt. Vijaylaxmi was married to Ramprasad in the year 1990. She met with an unfortunate death by suspected poisoning in September 2003. An F.I.R. was filed by Pawan Kumar against Ramprasad and numerous others. The Police after investigation filed a charge-sheet only against Ramprasad. After examination of 5 witnesses by the Trial Court, Pawan Kumar moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the left out accused persons to face trial. Such application was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 6.10.2005. 3. Pawan Kumar approached this Court by way of Cr. Revision No. 9 19/2005. The revision came to be rejected by this Court on 18.3.2013 by a detailed order. Pawan Kumar challenged the order passed by this Court by filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5819/2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the appeal by order dated 1.8.2013. 4. After the examination of some more witnesses at the trial, another application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by Pawan Kumar with the same prayer i.e. to summon the respondents No. 2 to 5 as additional accused in this case. The Trial Court rejected the application denying the prayer made by Pawan Kumar by the impugned order. Hence, this revision. 5. Shri Gaur learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Trial Court committed grave error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. As per him, the evidence of the witnesses examined after the rejection of the earlier application filed by the petitioner with the same prayer is clinching against the persons, who were left out by the Police. He thus urged that the impugned order to be set aside and the respondents No. 2 to 5 be directed to be summoned as additional accused to face trial. 6. Per contra, Shri M.K. Garg learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 5 has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner complainant. He contends that the rejection of the first application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant and the prayer to summon the respondents as additional accused has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the testimony of the witnesses examined at the trial is not trustworthy and thus, the Trial Court rightly refused the prayer to add the respondents as additional accused to face trial. He further points out that the case is already fixed for final arguments before the Trial Court. He thus prays that the revision should be dismissed. 7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Shri D.K. Gaur learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.K. Garg learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 5 as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned order as well as the statements of the witnesses examined at the trial. 8. The most important witness of the prosecution was none other than the petitioner Pawan Kumar himself, who is the first informant complainant in the case. He had already been examined by the Trial Court before the first application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was rejected right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Apart from Pawan Kumar, Sushil Kumar, another brother of the deceased was examined as PW-2. Three doctors, who examined the deceased were also examined by the time the first application for summoning additional accused was moved by the complainant. Subsequent to the rejection of the said application, some more prosecution witnesses have been examined at the trial. Out of the witnesses thus examined, PW-6 Chiranji Lal was a neighbour of the complainant and he did not level any specific allegation against any of the accused persons regarding any maltreatment given to the deceased by them. PW-7 Baldev Raj did not give any direct evidence implicating the accused. Out of the witnesses thus examined, PW-6 Chiranji Lal was a neighbour of the complainant and he did not level any specific allegation against any of the accused persons regarding any maltreatment given to the deceased by them. PW-7 Baldev Raj did not give any direct evidence implicating the accused. PW-8 Udaipal, PW-9 Chhotu Ram, PW-12 Yashwant, PW-13 Prem Singh and PW-14 Gopal Ram were all Police Officers, who were in one manner or the other connected with the investigation of the case. Thus, their testimony is not very material for the purpose of consideration of the prayer for summoning additional accused. PW-10 Barkat Ali, PW-11 Vishnu Sharma did not make any material allegation against the proposed accused. PW-15 Satyanarayan is the maternal uncle of the deceased. He made generalised allegations against the accused in his testimony. In cross-examination, significant omissions and improvements made by the witness from his earlier version before the police were elicited. PW-16 Surja Ram is the father of the deceased. He made allegations against all the five accused including Ramprasad regarding them having maltreated the deceased on count of bringing less dowry. In cross-examination, a specific theory was put to the witness that Ramprasad's residence and business had been separated by his father before the death of Smt. Vijaylaxmi. 9. Having considered the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion no significant improvement in the prosecution allegations was brought on record subsequent to the rejection of the first application filed by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The evidence of the witnesses who have been examined till date is not such that if unrebutted, it could lead to the probable conviction of the accused, who are sought to be added freshly to the case for facing trial. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of this Court so as to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C.The revision thus being without any merit is hereby rejected. Stay petition is also rejected.Revision dismissed. *******