IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., strong and cogent evidence is necessary to summon an additional accused, and mere witness testimony without corroboration is insufficient.

ORDER :

These petitions call in question a solitary order. Criminal Petition No.7280 of 2022 is preferred by the respondent/State and Criminal Petition No.274 of 2022 is preferred by the complainant. They call in question an order dated 17-12-2021, passed by the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District at Channarayapatna, in S.C.No.81 of 2015 by which, the concerned Court rejects the application of the prosecution to bring in the 3rd respondent in Criminal Petition No.274 of 2022 as an accused for conduct of trial with respect to offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

2. Heard Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7280 of 2022 and respondent No.1 in Crl.P.No.274 of 2022; Smt. H.K. Shobha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in Crl.P.No.7280 of 2022 and respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.P.No.274 of 2022. Sri K.C. Pratheep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant in Crl.P.No.274 of 2022.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

For the sake of convenience facts obtaining in Criminal Petition preferred by the complainant are narrated. A complaint comes to be registered on 02-07-2014 which becomes a crime in Crime No.99 of 2014 for offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 506, 307 r/w 34 of the IPC. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. While filing the charge sheet, they drop accused No.2, one D.K. Harish. Trial goes on. On 13-03-2019 the prosecution witness No.1, the complainant is examined. While tendering herself for cross-examination it is deposed that the 3rd respondent/D.K. Harish who has been dropped while filing the charge sheet, also participated in the crime by assaulting the complainant and PWs-2 and 3 were the witnesses to the said incident. After examination of PWs-1 to 3, the prosecution files an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to bring back the 3rd respondent into the web of trial as an accused. Objections were filed by the 3rd respondent. Considering the application and the objections, the concerned Court rejects the application filed by the prosecution to bring back the 3rd respondent as an accused for conduct of trial. It is this order dated 17-12-2021 that has driven both the complainant and the prosecution/State to this Court in these petitions.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, would in unison, contend that the concerned Court has wholly erred in not permitting the 3rd respondent to be brought back into the web of crime as, according to the three witnesses, he was the one who inflicted injuries using a club. The club is recovered and, therefore, the 3rd respondent ought to be tried along with the other accused. The learned counsel would submit that the application be allowed, as it is within the parameters of what the Apex Court has held in plethora of cases, as to when the accused who has been dropped at the time of filing of the charge can be brought back into the web of crime.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the 3rd respondent would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the 3rd respondent was not even present at the alleged scene of crime. It is, on this ground, he has been dropped pursuant to investigation. He is a practicing Advocate and at that point in time he was appearing before the Assistant Commissioner and his initials are clearly marked in the order sheet thereto and therefore there is no warrant of interference with the order passed by the concerned Court. The father of respondent No.3 is accused No.1 and the trial against him is on. Since the 3rd respondent was not present at the scene of crime, merely on the statement of interested witnesses, he cannot be brought back into the web of crime. She would submit that PW-1 is the victim, PW-2 is the brother of the victim and PW-3 is a coolie who deposes that he has seen the acc