Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 424
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Yunus - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
CRR No.3912 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 16-02-2018
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of cogent and reliable evidence for summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and the allowance of independent trial against other persons, even after the conclusion of a trial against co-accused, under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Summoning of Additional Accused - Indian Penal Code - Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 506, 307 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. It highlighted the requirement of cogent and reliable evidence for summoning additional accused and emphasized that the evidence must not be a mere re-recording of the statement made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The court also considered the judgment in Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and another vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2013 (9) SCC 500, which held that independent trial against other persons, even after the conclusion of a trial against co-accused, is not barred under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused after the main accused were acquitted. The trial Court dismissed the application, and the petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence satisfying the requirement under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that the trial of both the version and cross-version had already been concluded. It noted that the first application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed during the trial and found no ground to interfere with the trial Court's order.
Issues: The issues involved the dismissal of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused, the availability of evidence satisfying the requirement under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and the filing of a second application after the conclusion of the trial against the main accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence must not be a mere re-recording of the statement made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and emphasized the requirement of cogent and reliable evidence for summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It also noted that independent trial against other persons, even after the conclusion of a trial against co-accused, is not barred under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to show any evidence to summon the additional accused, and there was no ground to interfere with the trial Court's order.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
1. Prayer in this revision petition is for setting-aside the order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mewat vide which the second application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C') for summoning the private respondents as additional accused was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No.101 dated 22.05.2012 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') at Police Station Nagina was registered against twelve persons. During investigation, the police found the respondents No.2 to 8 namely Juhurudeen, Rati, Amrudin, Mun Sarif, Jamshida, Sagiran and Khatuni, are innocent and submitted the challan against five persons namely Kamruddin, Aash Mohd. Illiyash, Samina and Ashma.
3. The petitioner, after framing of the charge, filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the respondents No.2 to 8 as additional accused. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court/Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.09.2013 (Annexure P3). Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.978 of 2014 before this Court, in which the following order was passed:-
“After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
October 10, 2014
(DAYA CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE”
4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed second application (Annexure P4) for summoning the respondents No.2 to 7 with similar allegations as made in the earlier application. The trial Court, vide impugned order dated 16.07.2014 dismissed the application holding that since the earlier application was dismissed on 13.09.2013 and in the second application, the complainant did not even disclose about the dismissal of the first application vide order dated 13.09.2013. It was, thus, held that the second application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
5. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid order.
6. At the very outset, counsel for the State has submitted that the main accused namely Kamruddin and others, after facing the full length trial have been acquitted by the trial Court under Sections 149, 506, 307 IPC, however, were convicted for offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506 IPC vide judgment dated 10.08.2016 and released them on probation of good behaviour for a period of six months. Counsel for the State has, thus, submitted that even the probation period is already over, therefore, the present petition may be dismissed as the trial has already been concluded. A copy of the said judgment dated 10.08.2016 is taken on record as Mark 'X'.
7. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has submitted that inspite of the fact that the main accused persons have been acquitted, the right of the petitioner/complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is still available as in case, the impugned order is set-aside, the respondents No.2 to 8 can be directed to face independent trial. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment “Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and another vs. State of Gujarat and others”, 2013 (9) SCC 500 and further submitted that from the statement of the complainant and injured persons recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (copy attached as Annexure P2 (Colly.)), the role of respondents No.2 to 8 is duly assigned and, therefore, they are liable to be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that there is no bar under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to file the second application as the revision petition filed before this Court, challenging the earlier order dated 13.09.2013 was simply withdrawn and it was not adjudicated upon merits by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has, thus, submitted that the impugned order be set-aside and the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. be allowed and the matter may be remanded back for conducting an independent trial qua respondents No.2
