The evidence for summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C should be based on the allegations in the FIR and the deposition during trial, rather than on the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral). - Challenge in the instant criminal revision petition is to the order dated 03.04.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondent No.2 as an additional accused to face trial in case FIR No. 126, dated 05.08.2019, registered under Sections 304-B, 302, 34, 342, 328 of IPC, lodged at Police Station Nathusari Chopta, was dismissed.

2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the instant revision petition may be noticed thus:-

FIR under Sections 304-B, 302, 34, 342, 328 of IPC came to be registered at the instance of petitioner - Sonia. Both the complainant -petitioner and her sister Manju (since deceased) were married to two brothers Rakesh and Sagar, respectively, on 22.02.2016. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the relations of the deceased - Manju with her husband - Sagar and mother-in-law - Silochana (respondent No.2) were not very good, as she would be frequently subjected to harassment by both of them. In this regard, many a times, Panchayat was convened between the parties, however, it proved to be a futile exercise. Just two days prior to the occurrence in question, i.e. on 13th August, 2019, the father of both the complainant and the deceased, along with his family members had again convened a Panchayat. There had been some positive outcome, however, it was short-lived, as soon thereafter on 15th August, 2019, when the complainant and her sister Manju (deceased) were doing some household work, a quarrel broke out between the latter and her husband Rakesh, on some issue. Resultantly, both respondent No.2 as well as the complainant's husband - Sagar were attracted to the spot. All the three persons including respondent No.2 locked the complainant in a room. Respondent No.2 caught Manju from her legs, while her husband - Rakesh and brother-in-law -Sagar, forcibly administered some substance into her mouth. The complainant witnessed the entire occurrence through the window of the room, where she had been locked. Though the complainant cried for help, however, all the three aforementioned i.e. respondent No.2, her husband Rakesh and her brother-in-law - Sagar, put Manju inside a water tank situated in their house and covered the same. On seeing the occurrence, the complainant - petitioner lost her consciousness. On regaining her consciousness, she saw that one of her other brothers-in-law (Jeth) namely Ram Murti and sister-in-law (Jethani) namely Shagun took Manju out from the tank. After a while at about 1:30 P.M., the brother of the complainant came to visit her in the afternoon, as it happened to be Raksha Bandhan. She narrated the entire occurrence to him, who then in turn informed his family, which ultimately led to the registration of the FIR in question at about 10:30 P.M. on the same day.

3. Subsequent to the registration of the FIR, only accused - Sagar and Rakesh were challaned and arrested, while respondent No.2 - Silochna was put in column No.2, having been declared innocent during investigation.

4. During trial, since the petitioner - complainant while stepping into the witness-box as PW-1 reiterated the allegations levelled by her in the FIR in question, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the prosecution to summon respondent No.2, as an additional accused. However, vide impugned order dated 03.04.2021, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

5. The trial Court while dismissing the said application under Section 319 Cr.P.C, placed a great deal of reliance on a statement made by the petitioner - complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 20th August, 2019. The trial Court arrived at a conclusion that not only were the allegations against respondent No.2 general in nature, but they did not even appear to be genuine, more so, in the light of the contradictory statements made by the complainant at the time of lodgi