Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 307 (UTT)

MEHCHUVA RAM DUGTAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-06-17

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate, present for the applicants. 2. Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned brief holder, present for the State/respondent no1. 3. Mr. Ambrish Kumar with Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocates, for the respondent no.2. 4. The applicants in both the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have filed these applications invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court against an order dated 14.06.2013, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge IVth, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.13 of 1997, by which the applicants have been summoned for facing trial. 5. The applicant in Criminal Misc. Case No.642 of 2013 is a Deputy Superintendent of Police who is presently posted in Bareilly, U.P. who at the relevant time was posted as Station Officer of Police Station Kankhal, and the applicants in Criminal Misc. Case No.649 of 2013 are Sub Inspectors. Applicant no.1 in Criminal Misc. Case No.649 of 2013 was posted as Head Moharrir and the applicant no. 2 was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Kankhal. In both the applications, the applicants have challenged an order dated 14.06.2013, passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., whereby the application has been allowed and the trial court came to the conclusion that the present applicants be prosecuted under Section 109 read with Section 302 of I.P.C. and alternatively under Section 120B read with Section 302 of I.P.C. It is this order which has been challenged before this Court by means of the present applications. 6. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. under Case Crime No. 75 of 1996 was lodged on 01.06.1996, under Sections 147/148/149/302 of I.P.C. at Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar, in respect of murder of one Pankaj Kumar Khanna @ Bugla. In the said crime, main accused was Rajesh Bhardwaj who was named in the F.I.R. Initially the investigation was conducted in the matter by these applicants, however, thereafter the matter was investigated by the CBCID. After investigation the charge sheet was filed and thereafter matter has been committed to the Court of Sessions and trial is presently proceedings, interalia, under Section 302 of I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No.13 of 1997 (State Vs. Bittu & others). 7. After investigation the charge sheet was filed and thereafter matter has been committed to the Court of Sessions and trial is presently proceedings, interalia, under Section 302 of I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No.13 of 1997 (State Vs. Bittu & others). 7. In the investigation, conducted by the CBCID, it was also found that certain role was also played by the present applicants in order to help the accused, as they deliberately wanted to connect the murder case with another crime, which happened on 25.05.1996, in order to divert the investigation. Hence, a separate Case being Case Crime No.62 of 1999 under Section 217/218/120B of I.P.C. was lodged at Police Station Kankhal against the applicants, in respect of which S.T. No.415 of 2008 is going on. During the trial of S.T. No.415 of 2008, it has come out in the Statement of PW1 Jitendra Kumar, that interpolation, correction, manipulation in the police record was made by the present applicants as a matter of “conspiracy” and in order to abate murder. The statement of PW1 Jitendra Kumar which is dated 09.05.2013 is on record, which has been perused. Although, this statement does not clearly find reflection in the order dated 14.06.2013, but the fact remains that the statement of PW1 Jitendra Kumar in which the role has been assigned to the present applicants clearly precedes the order dated 14.06.2013. 8. The powers given to the trial court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. are absolutely wide. Section 319 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears 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 Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then— (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” 9. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that on the basis of testimony of single prosecution witness conviction cannot be made against the applicants. He further submits that it would be the case of double jeopardy. Both the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants cannot be taken into consideration at this stage, as it is a matter of trial. Plea of “double jeopardy” is in any case misconceived. 10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 14.06.2013, passed by the learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.13 of 1997. This Court is total in agreement with the order of the trial court. The trial must proceed against the present applicants as well as that would serve the ends of justice. 11. In view thereof, both the applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Criminal Misc. Application No.642 of 2013 and Criminal Misc. Application No.649 of 2013) are hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 03.07.2013 is hereby vacated. The trial court is hereby directed to proceed strictly in accordance with law. 12. It is made absolutely clear that any observation in the matter are only for the purpose of the present case, it shall have no bearing in the trial proceedings.