( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 24-3-2006 passed Shri Shiv Mangal Pandey, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratpur in sessions Trial No. 329/2005 whereby the application under Section 319 Cr. P. C. filed by Amit Jogi, the applicant No. 1 herein, to add Reginald Jermiah P. W. 85 as an accused, was rejected.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that the 4 applicants herein along with 25 others are facing trial for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 120-B, 427 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and under Sections 25/27 of arms Act. On the date of filing this criminal revision, as many as 96 witnesses had already been examined by the prosecution. It is alleged by the prosecution that Amit Jogi, the applicant No. 1 herein, hatched a criminal conspiracy to eliminate prominent N. C. P. leader Ramavatar Jaggi in furtherance of which Chiman Singh, the applicant No. 4 herein, committed murder of Ramavatar Jaggi.

( 3 ) DURING trial, Reginald Jermiah was examined as prosecution witness number 85 on 16-3-2006 and was cross-examined on 17-3-2006. On 26-3-2006 an application was moved on behalf of Amit Jogi, the applicant No. 1 herein, that the statement of reginald Jermiah P. W. 85 established that he actually participated in the alleged criminal conspiracy to murder Ramavatar Jaggi. Thus, an offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B. I. P. C. was clearly made out against Reginald Jermiah. It was, therefore, prayed that in exercise of the powers under Section 319 Cr. P. C. Reginald jermiah be added as an accused in Sessions Trial No. 329/2005.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge rejected the prayer on the following grounds : (i) that besides the evidence of Reginald jermiah P. W. 85, there was no other material to show his complicity in the conspiracy to commit murder of Ramavatar Jaggi; (ii) the evidence of Reginald Jermiah shows that in the meeting he was wholly opposed to the idea of Amit Jogi to eliminate N. C. P. leader Ramavatar Jaggi; and (iii) under Section 132 of the Evidence act, Reginald Jermiah was protected and could not be made an accused on the basis of his own statement.

( 5 ) SHRI Surendra Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants has argued with great fervor that the evidence of Reginald Jermiah leaves no room for any doubt that he was a party to the criminal conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by Amit Jogi and others to eliminate Ramavatar Jaggi. To underline the scope of Section 319 Cr. P. C. and the duty of the Court envisaged therein, learned Senior Counsel cited a catena of decisions. To support the arguments that an accused can move an application under Section 319 Cr. P. C. and to counter the arguments of Shri bhishma Kinger, learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation that placing a witness on trial on his own admissions was contrary to the norms known to the criminal justice system, learned Senior Advocate for the applicants placed reliance on Vasudevan Nair v. State of Kerala. 2005 Cri LJ 1457 (Ker), Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 Cri LJ 2251, mohan Wahi v. State (Central Bureau of Investigation), new Delhi, 1982 Cri LJ 2040 (Del), Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatia and others v. The State, 1968 Cri LJ 1584 (Bom)and Chiragdalvi Mohammed Abdul Azeem ahmed v. The State, 1998, Cri LJ 3112 (AP ). For proving ingredients of conspiracy, reliance was placed on Kehar Singh and others v. The State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1988 SC 1883 : (1989 Cri LJ 1 ). For highlighting the duty of Court under Section 319 Cr. P. C. reliance was placed on Joginder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another AIR 1979 SC 339 : (1979 Cri LJ 333), Jarnail singh and another v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 2003 SC 4081 : (2003 Cri LJ 2307), Girish Yadav and others v. State of madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 3098 : (1996 cri LJ 2159) and Arun Dube v. The State of m. P. 1991 Cri LJ 840 (MP) Distinguishing the citation rendered in Michael Machado and Ann v.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document