Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 36 (ALL)

Mangal Singh v. State of U. P.

2019-01-04

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY

body2019
JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. None appears on behalf of the revisionist even in the revised call. 2. The present criminal revision is of the year 2013 and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Madan Lal Kapoor Vs. Rajiv Thapar and others, (2007) 7 SCC 623 , wherein it has been held that criminal revision cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution and it must be decided on merits, therefore, I proceeded with the matter to hear it on merits. 3. Heard learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and perused the record. 4. In the present matter, the complainant Smt. Manju Devi, lodged an F.I.R. (under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.) against Manas Singh, son of Mangal Singh and Mangal Singh, son of Mahadev Singh (revisionist in the present revision) under Sections 452,323,354,504 and 506 I.P.C. at P.S. Gajner, District: Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat). The relevant part of the F.I.R. is reproduced below: ^^2& ;g fd 'kiFkdrhZ@izkfFkuh@okfnuh dks vfHk;qDrx.k ekul flag iq= eaxy flag o eaxy flag iq= egknso flag fuoklh xzke djlk Fkkuk xtusj ftyk dkuiqj nsgkr ¼jekckbZ uxj½ feydj fnukad 16-07-2010 dks le; djhc 12 cts jkr esa 'kiFkdrhZ@izkfFkZuh ds njokts esa vkdj njokts dks tcju [kqyokus dh fu;r ls njokts dks dqYgkM+h ls dkVdj ?kj ds vUnj ?kqldj tkdj xkyh xykSt nsrs gq, 'kiFkdrhZ@izkfFkuh@okfnuh ds lkFk vHknzrk fd;k vkSj dgk fd rqEgkjk ifr bl le; dgka gS 'kiFkdrhZ@izkfFkZuh us dgk fd esjk ifr okgu Mªkbojh dk dk;Z djrk gS ftlls dgha ckgj x;s gq, gSA brus esa fQj dgk fd rqEgkjk ifr xokgh nsus ds fy, cM+k 'kkSdhu jgrk gS vkSj mlus esjs f[kykQ ,0Mh0ts0 v"Ve~ dkuiqj nsgkr eq0ua0 lu 2010 ljdkj cuke ekul flag /kkjk 308] 325] 504] 506 vkbZihlh Fkkuk xtusj] ftldk QSlyk fnukad 20-7-2010 dks gks x;k gS ftlls esjs fo:} rhu lky dh ltk gks x;h gS vFkkZr esjk thou cckZn gks x;k gS blls xqLlk;s vfHk;qDrx.kksa esa 'kiFkdrhZ@izkfFkZuh dks ykr ?kwlksa o M.Mksa ls ekjkihVk vkSj ;g /kedh fn;k fd ge yksxksa ds fo:} Fkkuk dpsgjh esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh er djuk ugha rks rqedks tku ls ekj nsxsa izkfFkZuh ds fpYykus dh vkokt lqudj ?kVuk ds le; esMku vifBr iq= mtkxj flag xzke djlk Fkkuk xtusj] dkuiqj nsgkr o euh"k iq= jkeujk;u fuoklh cktiqj ,oa vU; reke O;fDr eqgYys ds ekSds ij vk x;s Fks ftUgksaus ?kVuk dks ns[kk o lquk,sAa 3. XXXX 4- ;g fd vfHk;qDrx.kksa ds fo:} dksbZ dk;Zokgh u gksus ds dkj.k muds eukscy c<+us ls vfHk;qDrx.kksa us 'kiFkdrhZ@izkfFkZuh ds ifr vfHkeU;q flag dks Hkh fnukad 21-07-2010 dks le; djhc 11 cts fnu esa ikek jsyos LVs'ku tkus okys jkLrs esa vfHk;qDr ekul flag ds gkFk esa dV~Vk o eaxy flag ds gkFk esa ykBh ysdj ?ksj gq, Fks xkyh xykSt nsrs gq, yydkj jgs Fks fd vHkh lkys dks tku ls ekj nks fdlh rjg ls cpus u ik;s eqfYtekuksa us ykr ?kwlksa ykBh dV~Vs dh cV ls ekjkihVk vkSj /kedh fn;k fd rqe lkys ge yksxksa ds f[kykQ ;fn dksbZ dk;Zokgh er djuk ugha rks fuf'pr gh tku ls ekj Mkysxsa mDr ?kVuk ds le; xqM~Mw iq= jke vkSrkj fuoklh xksxweÅ o lUrks"k fuoklh ljou [ksM+k o vU; reke jkgxhj ?kVukLFky ij vk x;s Fks ftUgksus mDr ?kVuk dks ns[kk o lquk gSA^^ 5. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against the accused Manas Singh and not against the revisionist. Relevant part of the charge-sheet is mentioned hereinafter. ^^Jheku th] fou; gS fd eqdnek okyk U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkuqlkj Fkkuk gktkij iathd`r gksdj foospuk eq> ,lvkbZ }kjk lEikfnr dh xbZ rks vc rd dh lEiw.kZ foospuk C;kukr xokgku] ekSdk eqvk;uk] lekbZ lk{; ls vfHk0 [kkuk ua0 3 ds fo:} tqeZ /kkjk 452@354@323@504@506 vkbZihlh dk ck[kwch lkfcr gSA vfHk0 eaxy flag iq= egknso flag dk uketnxh xyr ik;h x;h gSA vfHk0 ekul flag dk pkyku }kjk vkjksi i= U;k;ky; fd;k tk jgk gSA lcwr ryc Qjekdj lekIr djus dh d`ik dh tk;sA g0v0 ,lvkb 30-11-2010 ,l0ds0flag pUnsy^^ 6. During trial, P.W.1, the complainant was examined on 29.8.2011, wherein she specifically mentioned about the role of Mangal Singh also. During trial, P.W.1, the complainant was examined on 29.8.2011, wherein she specifically mentioned about the role of Mangal Singh also. Relevant part of the evidence is mentioned below: ^^uke lk{kh%&eatw iRuh vfHkeU;w flag] fuoklh vjlk] Fkkuk xtusj] jekckbZ uxj mez 36 o"kZ is'kk x`g.kh us l'kiFk C;ku fd;k fd ?kVuk fnukad 16-07-2010 le; jkr ds yxHkx 12-00 cts FksA eSa vius ?kj esa vius cPpksa ds lkFk Fkh eqfYteku eaxy flag o ekul flag tks esjs iM+ksl ds gh gSa dqYgkM+h ls njoktk dkVdj esjs ?kj esa ?kql vk;s vkSj xUnh&2 xkfy;ka nsrs gq, esjs lkFk v'yhy gjdr Hkh djus yxs esjs fojks/k djus ij eaxy flag us vius gkFk esa fy, dqYgkM+h ds fiNys fgLls ls esjs lj esa nkfguh vksj nkfguh vkW[k ds Åij ekjk rFkk ekul flag us esjs fgi ij ekjk ftlds dkj.k eS vkt Hkh pyus esa vleFkZ gwWA esjs ifr Hkh ckgj Fks esjh xqgkj ij xkWo dk esnku flag nkSM+dj ekSds ij vk;k vkSj eq>s cpk;kA eSa Fkkus ij dIrku ds ;gkW fjiksVZ ntZ djkus x;h ysfdu fjiksVZ ntZ ugha gqbZA rc eSaus U;k;ky; esa izkFkZuk i= nsdj vfHk;qDrksa ds fo:} eqdnek ntZ djk;k FkkA U;k;ky; esa fn, x, izkFkZuk i= dh VkbZi'kqnk izfr lqudj o ns[kdj mldh iqf"V dh rFkk ml ij vius gLrk{kj Hkh cuk;s ftl ij izn'kZ d&1 Mkyk x;kA eqfYtekuksa ds Mj o ?ksjkcUnh ds dkj.k eSa viuh MkDVjh ugha djk ik;hA blds ckn fnukad 21-07-2010 dks bUgha eqfYtekuksa us esjs ifr dks ikek LVs'ku tkus okys jkLrs ij ckcw frokjh ds cxhps ds ikl ekjk ihVk FkkA njksxk th us eq>ls iwWNrkN dh FkhA g0 eatw^^ 7. The complainant, submitted an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to arraign the revisionist as an accused, the said application is mentioned below. The complainant, submitted an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to arraign the revisionist as an accused, the said application is mentioned below. ^^izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 319 lh0vkj0ih0lh0 Jheku~ th] lfou; fuosnu gS fd mijksDr okn esa izkfFkZuh@okfnuh dk C;ku fnukad 29-08-2011 dks U;k;ky; esa gqvk Fkk] ftlesa fd izkfFkZuh ds c;ku esa eaxy flag iq= egknso flag fuoklh xzke djlk dks ?kVuk esa 'kkfey gksuk crk;k x;k gS vkSj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa Hkh eaxy flag iq= egknso flag dk uke ntZ gS fdUrq iqfyl Fkkuk xtusj ds }kjk mijksDr dfFkr eaxy flag dk uke gVk fn;k x;k gS] tcfd izkfFkZuh lk{kh ds c;ku esa eaxy flag dk uke ?kVuk esa 'kkfey gksuk ik;k x;k gSA vr% Jheku th ls fuosnu gS fd mijksDr okn esa /kkjk 319 lhvkjihlh ds rgr vfHk;qDr cuk;k tkuk ,oa ?kVuk esa 'kkfey eaxy flag iq= egknso flag fuoklh xzke djlk dks ryc fd;s tkus gsrq vkns'k ikfjr djsa] Jheku~ th dh egku n;k gksxhA fnukad%& g0 eUtw izkfFkZuh@okfnuh ¼Jherh eatw nsoh½ iRuh vfHkeU;w flag fuoklh xzke djlk Fkkuk xtusj] dk0ns0A^^ 8. The learned trial court vide order dated 19.3.2013, allowed the application and summoned the revisionist Mangal Singh as an accused under Sections 323, 452,354,504 and 506 I.P.C. Relevant part of the order is mentioned below. ^^okfnuh eatw nsoh dh vksj ls Fkkuk xtusj esa eqdnek vijk/k la0 293@10] vUrxZr /kkjk& 323] 354] 452] 504] 506 Hkk0na0la0 dk ekul flg o eaxy flag ds fo:} ntZ djk;k FkkA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd foospd us vkjksi i= dsoy ekul flag ds fo:} izLrqr fd;k gSA okfnuh eatw nsoh dks ih0MCYkw0&1 ds :i esa lk{; esa ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gSA ftlus vius lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd eSa vius ?kj esa vius cPpksa ds lkFk FkhA eqfYteku eaxy flag o ekul flag tks mlds iM+ksl ds gS] us dqYgkM+h ls njoktk dkVdj mlds ?kj es ?kql vk;s vkSj xUnh&xUnh xkfy;ka nsrs gq;s mlds lkFk v'yhy gjdr djus yxs rFkk mlds lkFk ekjihV Hkh dhA bl izdkj okfnuh us izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ eaxy flag o ekul ds fo:} ntZ djk;h Fkh vkSj vius lk{; esa Hkh eaxy flag o ekul flag }kjk vijk/k dkfjr fd;s tkus dk dFku fd;k gSA vr% i=koyh ij izFke n`"V;k bruk lk{; miyC/k gS fd mDr vijk/k ds fopkj.k gsrq vfHk;qDr eaxy flag dks ryc fd;k tk;sA^^ 9. The revisionist has challenged the said order before this Court by way of filing the present revision. 10. I have heard learned A.S.G.I. who supported the impugned order and perused the record. 11. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors and other connected matters, (2014) 3 SCC 92 , had considered the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C. in detail and while answering one of the question referred that- 'what is the degree of satisfaction required for invoking the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.' held in paragraphs 105 and 106 that: "105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if ''it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence' is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are not ''for which such person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused." 12. In the present case, the test prescribed in the above judgment Hardeep Singh (supra) is squarely applicable. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused." 12. In the present case, the test prescribed in the above judgment Hardeep Singh (supra) is squarely applicable. The contents of the F.I.R. as well as statements made by P.W.1 has clearly mentioned that revisionist Mangal Singh had accompanied with other accused, who entered the house of the complainant/P.W.1 and molested her and on opposition, revisionist also hit her on hand by an axe. These facts are sufficient for making an opinion that there is more than prima-facie case against the revisionist to summon him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 13. The trial court in the facts and circumstances of the present case has rightly exercised power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the order passed by the learned trial court is correct and does not require any interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed.