JUDGMENT :

Kirti Singh, J. (Oral)

CRM-5168-2025

This application has been filed for placing on record judgment of acquittal dated 06.01.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa in FIR No.246 dated 11.07.2016, registered at Police Station Rania, Sirsa as Annexue P-9.

The application is allowed as prayed for and judgment of acquittal dated 06.01.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa is taken on record.

CRR-1613-2018

1. The challenge in the revision petition is to the impugned order dated 18.04.2018, whereby application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners as additional accused, was allowed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa.

2. An FIR under Sections 363, 366-A read with Section 120-B IPC was lodged on 11.07.2016 on the statement of the father of the prosecutrix, alleging that Ajay Singh, Lovedeep Singh @ Lovely and Balwinder Singh had allured the prosecutix and had taken her away. Subsequently, investigation in the case was conducted and the accused were arrested. The victim was got medico-legally examined and her two statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., both being contradictory, were recorded. Thereafter, challan was prepared and the trial commenced, during which an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon and join the present petitioners in the trial as additional accused, which stood allowed vide impugned order dated 18.04.2018. Against the same, the present petition has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the learned trial Court erred in summoning the petitioners as accused by observing that the statement dated 31.03.2018 contained the same allegations as were made by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 13.07.2016. He submits that the prosecutrix in her first statement recorded before the Magistrate, leveled no allegation, and even disclosed that accused Ajay had financial transactions with her father. The learned Magistrate even gave his cartegoric observation qua the same that the prosecutrix was very confident throughout the recording of the statement and had prayed to be sent back with petitioner No.1. However, in her subsequent statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she gave a completely different version, and reiterated the same in her testimony, which was made the basis of summoning the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel, to buttress his submissions, places reliance upon the judgment passed in Hardeep Singh (supra) Vs. State of Punjab, SC 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 623, and contends that even as per the MLR of the victim, no fresh marks of injury on her person were found and even the FSL report does not corroborate the allegations. He further submits that even the trial Court in the acquittal order of the four main accused, dated 06.01.2022, has given observations to the effect that there exists material discrepancies in the otherwise improvised statements of the prosecutrix and the complainant. Therefore, he submits that the contradictory and inconsistent statements, in absence of in corroborative evidence, fail to disclose even a prima facie case, let alone meeting the criteria of more than a prima facie case, as is imperative to summon a proposed accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel contends that there are specific and serious allegations leveled against the petitioners by the prosecutrix both in her second statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as also in her deposition as a prosecution witness. Therefore, the impugned order has been rightly passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa and deserves to be upheld.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the paper book.

6. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to discuss the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in some of its recent judgements. Discussing the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in