IMPORTANT POINT
For invoking its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Court is to be satisfied that from the evidence adduced before it, a person against whom no charge had been framed, but whose complicity appears to be clear, should be tried together with the accused.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 319 – Prosecution of accused persons under Section 307, 302 read with Section 120-B IPC for causing death of one person and injuries to another – Application filed by Respondent.2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning the appellants to face trial in respect of the said incident – Dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge twice even after direction given by High Court in revision petition – On second revision petition High Court directed trial Court to issue summons against appellants under Section 302, 307 and 120-B IPC – Appeal – All that is required by the Court for invoking its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be satisfied that from the evidence adduced before it, a person against whom no charge had been framed, but whose complicity appears to be clear, should be tried together with the accused – Instantly although, appellants were named in the F.I.R., they were not named as accused in charge-sheet during the trial-However, P.W.1 in his evidence, had named appellants as persons who were involved in incident causing death of deceased and injuries to another – Despite that trial Court, on two separate occasions, rejected prayer made by Respondent No.2 for summoning appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – High Court, after considering evidence of P.W.1, thought it necessary for appellants to be summoned – No error committed by High Court in directing that appellants be summoned to stand trial along with co-accused, in view of evidence of P.W.1 during the trial itself- No interference called for with order passed by High Court – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 16 to 19)
        Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 319 – Ingredients of – The ingredients of Section 319 are unambiguous and indicate that where in the course of 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 he has committed. (Para 15)
       Facts of the Case :
        1. Accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case under Section 307, 302 read with Section 120-B IPC for causing death of one person injuries to another. Application was filed by Respondent.2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning the appellants to face trial in respect of the said incident. Said application was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge twice even after direction given by High Court in revision petition. On second revision petition High Court directed trial Court to issue summons against appellants under Section 302, 307 and 120-B IPC.
        2. Present appeal has been filed by High Court against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Instantly although, appellants were named in the F.I.R., they were not named as accused in charge-sheet during the trial. However, P.W.1 in his evidence, had named appellants as persons who were involved in incident causing death of deceased and injuries to another. Despite that trial Court, on two separate occasions, rejected prayer made by Respondent No.2 for summoning appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. High Court, after considering evidence of P.W.1, thought it necessary for appellants to be summoned. No error was committed by High Court in directing that appellants be summoned to stand trial along with co-accused, in view of evidence of P.W.1during the trial itself. No interference was called for with order passed by High Court.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. In respect of an incident which took place on 1st October, 2006, in the day time at about 1.00 p.m., Kamlesh Singh (PW.1) lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur, U.P., alleging that while his younger brother, Brijesh Kumar Singh alias Bablu Singh along with his brother-in-law Manvender Singh, was going on foot towards Mani Chauraha through Gupta Colony at Sitapur, U.P., the accused persons, in a planned manner with common intention, attacked the deceased and Manvender Singh. On account of such assault, Brijesh Kumar Singh died on the spot and Manvender Singh also sustained injuries. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a challan against the accused persons on 22nd October, 2006, under Section 307, 302 read with Section 120-B IPC and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the Sessions Court for trial.

3. On 19th June, 2007, the deposition of Kamlesh Singh (PW.1) was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitapur. The said witness reiterated the statements which had been made by him in the First Information Report. It also appears that on the same day, Kamlesh Singh filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Sitapur, for summoning the appellants herein to face trial in respect of the said incident. The said application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 5th July, 2007, and against such order of dismissal, Kamlesh Singh filed Criminal Revision No.413 of 2007, which was disposed of by the High Court on 29th August, 2007, by setting aside the impugned order and directing the trial Court to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made in the order of the High Court.

4. In compliance with the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge re-heard the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and by his order dated 15th September, 2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, once again, dismissed the application filed by the respondent No.2 for summoning the appellants herein under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

5. The dismissal of the application was followed by a second criminal revision petition filed by the respondent No.2 on 5th October, 2007, being No.549 of 2007 and after hearing the parties, the High Court came to the conclusion that the fresh order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 15th September, 2007, was in direct defiance of the order passed by the High Court earlier on 29th August, 2007. In that view of the matter, the High Court not only sought for an explanation from the learned trial Judge for not complying with the aforesaid order of the High Court, but after quashing the impugned order dated 15th September, 2007, directed the trial Court to issue summons against Ram Pal Singh, Deepak Singh, Ajai Kumar Singh and Anil Kumar Singh for their appearance as accused in Sessions Trial No.1163 of 2006 under Section 302, 307 and 120-B IPC.

6. It is the said order of the High Court which has been impugned in the instant appeal by the persons summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

7. Mr. V.J. Francis, learned advocate, appearing for the appellants, submitted that although the appellants had not been named by any of the other witnesses, only on the statement of Kamlesh Singh (PW.1), they had been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as accused in the sessions trial. Mr. Francis also submitted that the very presence of Kamlesh Singh (PW.1) at the time of the incident was highly doubtful as he had not named some of the other persons named by other eye-witnesses who were said to have been present at the time of the incident. He also urged that none of the eye-witnesses to the incident had named the appellants in their statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Mr. Francis submitted that the High Court did not also consider the fact that Manvender Singh, who had been accompanying the deceased at the time of the incident and had also sustai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2009 Supreme(SC) 269

2009(1) Supreme 649SUPREME COURT OF INDIAAltamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.Ram Pal Singh & Ors. — AppellantsversusState of U.P. & Anr. — RespondentsCriminal Appeal No. 977 of 2009(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7189 of 2007)Decided on : 13-02-2009

IMPORTANT POINT For invoking its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Court is to be satisfied that from the evidence adduced before it, a person against whom no charge had been framed, but whose complicity appears to be clear, should be tried together with the accused.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

2009(1) Supreme 649
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Ram Pal Singh & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of U.P. & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 977 of 2009
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7189 of 2007)
Decided on : 13-02-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
For invoking its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Court is to be satisfied that from the evidence adduced before it, a person against whom no charge had been framed, but whose complicity appears to be clear, should be tried together with the accused.