IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Karamjit Singh, J.
Kuldeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRR-849 of 2018
Decided On : 02-02-2023
Section 319 Cr.P.C - Criminal Revision Petition - Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC - [Section 319 Cr.P.C] - The court discussed the scope and power of Section 319 Cr.P.C, emphasizing the need for stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity to summon additional accused. The court highlighted the discretionary and extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C, citing relevant case laws such as Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ramesh Chandra Srivastva Vs. State of U.P. The court found that the evidence collected during investigation suggested the innocence of the respondents, and the prosecution's case lacked the required degree of satisfaction to summon them as additional accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a criminal revision petition against the dismissal of an application to summon additional accused in a murder case. The complainant's son was allegedly murdered, and the prosecution sought to summon two individuals as additional accused based on the testimony of the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence collected during investigation suggested the innocence of the respondents, and the prosecution's case lacked the required degree of satisfaction to summon them as additional accused. The court emphasized the need for stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity to exercise the discretionary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the application of Section 319 Cr.P.C to summon additional accused in a murder case, the standard of proof required, and the discretion of the court in exercising such power.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C, citing relevant case laws such as Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ramesh Chandra Srivastva Vs. State of U.P.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed, and the trial Court was directed to proceed further in the trial against the accused.
JUDGMENT
Karamjit Singh, J. - The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 02.01.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C to summon respondent No.2 Amandeep Singh @ Ambi and respondent No. 3 Baldev Singh as additional accused in criminal case having FIR No.16 dated 30.01.2017 under Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Sardulgarh District Mansa, is dismissed.
2. The brief facts pertaining to the present case are as under:-
that Kuljit Kaur daughter of complainant Kuldeep Singh performed marriage with respondent No.2 Amandeep Singh @ Ambi son of accused Darshan Singh against the wishes of her family. Then FIR was lodged against respondent No.2 Amandeep Singh @ Ambi by Kuldeep Singh but later on the said FIR was cancelled by High Court. Thereafter on 20.05.2015 respondent No.2 Amandeep Singh @ Ambi lodged FIR under Section 307 IPC in Police Station Sardulgarh District Mansa against Kuldeep Singh father of Kuljit Kaur, in which Kuldeep Singh was arrested but was later on granted bail by the Court concerned. On 30.01.2017 the complainant, his son Gurwinder Singh and one Amrik Singh had gone to Sardulgarh and at about 1.30 PM the complainant and Amrik Singh went inside the New Genius Mobile shop to purchase a new mobile phone while Gurwinder Singh was standing outside the said shop near one car and in the meanwhile Darshan Singh, his son Amandeep Singh @ Ambi, one Baldev Singh along with three other unknown persons reached there on two motorcycles and then Baldev Singh exhorted his accomplices to catch hold of Gurwinder Singh and that Gurwinder Singh should not escape and then said Baldev Singh and Amandeep Singh @ Ambi caught Gurwinder Singh from his arms and Darshan Singh (a baptized sikh) who was having Siri Sahib, took out the same and gave two blows of Siri Sahib on the back of Gurwinder Singh, as a result of which Gurwinder Singh fell down and in the meantime complainant and Amrik Singh came out of the shop and raised alarm on which the accused persons ran away from the spot on their motorcycles. Injured Gurwinder Singh was taken to civil hospital Sardulgarh where he succumbed to his injuries. The police also received the information regarding aforesaid incident and complainant got recorded his statement and consequently, FIR was registered against Darshan Singh, Amandeep Singh @ Ambi, Baldev Singh and three other unknown persons for causing murder of Gurwinder Singh, the son of the complainant.
3. The police conducted investigation and during investigation respondents No.2 and 3 were found innocent and after completion of investigation the police presented challan against Darshan Singh while respondents No.2 and 3 were placed in column No.2 of the report submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against Darshan Singh to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. During trial prosecution examined PW1 Kuldeep Singh (complainant) and while appearing in the witness box the complainant reiterated the prosecution version and stated that at the time of occurrence Amandeep Singh @ Ambi and Baldev Singh caught Gurwinder Singh from his arms while Darshan Singh gave fatal blows of Siri Sahib to Gurwinder Singh, which resulted in his death.
4. The prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon Amandeep Singh @ Ambi and Baldev Singh as additional accused, after recording of the testimony of PW.1 Kuldeep Singh (complainant).
5. After hearing the State counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant and the defence counsel appearing on behalf of accused Darshan Singh, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application with the following observations:-
'....that though PW1 Kuldeep Singh has specifically named Amandeep Singh @ Ambi and Baldev Singh as having committed the offence but it is not out o
Brijendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 2017 (3) RCR (Cri) 374
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92
Ramesh Chandra Srivastva vs. State of U.P. 2021 (4) RCR (Cri) 219
The discretionary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C to summon additional accused requires stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity, as emphasized by relevant case laws.
Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence - When strong and cogent evidence comes against a person before the Court and such power should not be exercised in a casual a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary and extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the need for strong and cogent evidence to exercise this power, ....
The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly, only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court.
Point of law: Suicide - Summoning of the revisionist - Neither the chief-examination nor the cross-examination of the witness was recorded by the learned trial court, so only on the basis of query by....
The discretionary nature of the power under Section 319 CrPC and the requirement of strong and cogent evidence to summon additional accused during trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.