The discretionary and extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., requiring strong and cogent evidence against the accused, and the need for satisfaction beyond the level required for framing a charge, but short of leading to conviction.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. - Matter has been taken up through video conferencing via Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.

2. The present revision petition has been filed by impugning the order dated 13.07.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court), Jhajjar wherein the petitioners No.1 to 4 have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as additional accused to face trial in FIR No.354, dated 23.09.2019, under Sections 302, 304-B IPC, registered at Police Station Beri.

3. As per the factual matrix of this case, the present FIR was registered at the complaint made by Monu son of Sheokaran, resident of Village Beri, wherein he had alleged that the marriage of his sister Meera was solemnized with Sonu son of Chander Bhan. As per the allegations, after the marriage of his sister, her husband-Sonu, her mother-in-law Bimla, her sister-in-law Manju and her brothers-in-law Kala and Dhola used to beat his sister for bringing less dowry. On the day of occurrence, he received the information that his sister has been given beatings by her in-laws and after receiving the information, he went to her house. There he found his sister lying dead on the bed. On enquiry, he found that his sister had been killed by the above-mentioned accused. The FIR was lodged and on the basis of the same, the investigation was carried out and after the conclusion of the investigation, the challan was presented only against the husband Sonu whereas the rest of the four accused, who are petitioners in this petition, were kept in column No.2. During the recording of evidence before the trial Court, the complainant Monu appeared in the witness-box as PW1 wherein he reiterated the allegations against the petitioners which were made in the FIR. Thereafter, the complainant filed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners as additional accused. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties allowed the application vide its order dated 13.07.2021 and thus, directed the petitioners to be tried along with the accused already being tried, namely, Sonu.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the learned trial Court has totally fell in error by summoning the petitioners as additional accused. He contends that the mandate of Section 319 Cr.P.C. has totally been ignored by the trial Court as during investigation, the petitioners were exonerated by the investigation carried out by a Special Investigation Team. Counsel has relied upon various judgments i.e. Keshab Chandra Panda Versus State, Criminal Appeal No.91 of 1993, decided on 21.07.1994 by the Orissa High Court; Babaji Charan Barik Versus The State, Criminal Appeal No.10 of 1990, decided on 08.10.1993 by Orissa High Court; Sham Lal Versus State of Haryana (SC); Kans Raj Versus State of Punjab (SC)- Law Finder Doc ID # 25870; Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (SC)-Law Finder Doc Id # 514451; and Brijendra Singh and others Versus State of Rajasthan (SC)-Law Finder Doc ID # 851765.

6. The sum and substance of the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the trial Court has relied upon the presumption contained in Section 113-B of Evidence Act and in view of the judgments cited, the interpretation made by the trial Court under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is contrary to the observations made by the High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. He submits that the trial Court had wrongly interpretated the term "harassment soon before death" and thus, has drawn wrong conclusion by accepting the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners as additional accused.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

8. From the bare perusal of the facts on record, it is evident that th