Section 319 CrPC invocation requires strong cogent evidence where, if unrebutted, conviction likely; prior omissions in complaint and eye-witness statements vitiate reliance on later examination-in-chief.

JUDGMENT :

MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024 is filed by the applicants – Rukminbai Vishnu Karad, Pallavi Bharat Karad and Vijay Shahaji Gambhire, thereby challenging the order dated 23.09.2024 passed below Exhibit 50 under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2021 by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Latur, whereby the present applicants were directed to be added as accused in the said crime and to be tried together with the charge-sheeted accused.

3. Criminal Writ Petition No. 91 of 2025 is filed by the complainant – Vinayak Shripati Karad, thereby challenging the very same order dated 23.09.2024 passed below Exhibit 50 under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2021, whereby the application dated 30.08.2023 filed by him seeking addition of five accused persons came to be partly allowed by directing addition of accused namely Rukminbai Vishnu Karad, Pallavi Bharat Karad and Vijay Shahaji Gambhire and rejecting the prayer insofar as addition of Vishwanath Dadarao Karad and Ramesh Kashinath Karad.

4. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the common order dated 23.09.2024, they are heard and decided together by this common order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. R. R. Deshpande, Advocate h/f. Ms. Priyanka Ramesh Deshpande, Advocate, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1935 of 2024, vehemently submits that the incident occurred on 01.05.2020 and the FIR came to be lodged on 03.05.2020. It is further submitted that a perusal of the FIR would show that three (03) incidents are mentioned, all of which allegedly took place on the date of the incident, i.e. 01.05.2020. The first incident is stated to have occurred at about 05:00 p.m., the second incident allegedly at about 05:30 p.m., and the third incident allegedly at about 08:30 p.m. on the same date. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the First Information Report itself would show that, right from the beginning and from the first alleged incident mentioned therein, only seven (07) accused persons, who are charge-sheeted, were named as assailants who had allegedly assaulted the complainant / respondent No. 2 and the other injured witnesses and not the applicants. The complainant, Vinayak Shripati Karad, was undergoing medical treatment after the alleged assault and his statement was recorded in the presence of a Medical Officer, who had certified his fitness. The version put forth by the complainant later on that the present applicants were also involved in the assault stands falsified by the fact that no complaint was made by the complainant at the relevant time regarding non-inclusion of the applicants as accused by the police authorities. The first such complaint was made by the complainant only on 22.06.2020 before the Superintendent of Police, Latur, alleging non-inclusion of the names of the present applicants as accused, which, according to the learned counsel, was with an intention to create a basis to wreak vengeance against all the family members of the main accused. It is further submitted that the statement of the complainant under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded after about one and a half months of the incident, i.e. on 26.06.2020, and for the