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 learned trial court or only on the basis of oral submission of witness wrongly summoned the revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C., which is not permissible in the eye of law -

JUDGMENT :

Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This criminal revision has been filed under section 397/ 401 of Cr.P.C. against the interim order dated 28.8.2019 passed by Additional Session's Judge, Court No. 3, Ballia, by which the revisionist was summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial under sections 306, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sikandarpur, District Ballia.

2. Brief facts of this case as such that on 25.9.2017 father of deceased namely, Rajendra Singh, lodged an F.I.R. with allegation that her daughter namely, Renu Singh, was married about 22 years ago with Rajesh Singh. Out of the said wedlock a daughter Sonali aged about 18 years and a son Aditya aged about 16 years born. Due to harassment of husband, Rajesh Singh, and father-in-law, Chandra Shekhar Singh, daughter of the first informant, Renu Singh, committed suicide. So F.I.R. was lodged by the first informant, Rajendra Singh, against the revisionist, Chandra Shekhar Singh, as well as his son namely, Rajesh Singh, under section 306 I.P.C. at police station Sikandarapur, District Ballia as Case Crime No. 703 of 2017.

3. After lodging the F.I.R. post mortem of the body of deceased, Renu Singh, was conducted on 25.9.2017 and doctor opined cause of death due to ante mortem hanging. During investigation, Investigating Officer recorded statements of the first informant, Rajendra Singh, and his wife, Shiv Kumari Singh, under section 161 Cr.P.C. They clearly deposed in their statements that revisionist, Chandra Shekhar Singh, was residing separately from Rajesh Singh (husband of deceased) and during investigation statement of villagers also recorded. Villagers also deposed that Chandra Shekhar Singh was living apart from main accused, Rajesh Singh, so the revisionist, Chandra Shekhar Singh, was exonerated from this matter and charge-sheet was submitted only against Rajesh Singh (husband of deceased). During trial three witnesses, PW-1 / Rajendra Singh, PW-2 / Sonali Singh and PW-3 / Smt. Shiv Kumari Singh have been examined before the trial court and all these witnesses never mentioned in their statements name of the revisionist, Chandra Shekhar Singh. Learned trial court on the basis of oral statement of witness, Om Prakash Singh, summoned the revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C. to face above mentioned trial. Being aggrieved with the said order this revision has been filed by the revisionist.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned trial court without any cogent and credible evidence available on record only on the basis of oral submission of witness, Om Prakash Singh, summoned the revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial under section 306 I.P.C and 120-B I.P.C. So in these circumstances, order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia is wholly illegal and improper and is only based on surmises and conjectures.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist rely upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Labhu Jee Amrat Jee Thako and Others Vs. State of Gujrat, Criminal Appeal No. 1348/2018, SLP No. 6392/2018, Vijendra and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 763/2017, Hardip Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2014(3) S.C. Cases 92, Sunil Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of U.P. 2019 (108) ACC. In Sunil Kumar Gupta (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-

9. Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to proceed against any person not shown as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together along with the accused. It is fairly well settled that before the court exercises its jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it must arrive at satisfaction that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction of the persons sought to be added as the accused in the case. In Hardeep Singh, the Constitution Bench held as under:-

“105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exerci