IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
Priyanka Mall @ Mahima – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 2098 of 2021
Decided On : 09-01-2024
Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Criminal Conspiracy - Section 364 IPC - [Section 319 Cr.P.C., Section 364 IPC] - The court dismissed the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the respondent no. 4 as accused to face trial together with accused, who are already facing trial. The court relied on the legal provisions and interpretations from the judgments of Shiv Prakash Mishra vs. State of U.P., Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, and Brijendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, emphasizing the discretionary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the requirement of strong and cogent evidence to invoke this power.
Fact of the Case:
The victim was abducted and narrowly escaped from being killed. The informant moved an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the respondent no. 4 as a conspirator to face trial with the accused, but the court dismissed the application citing lack of strong and cogent evidence against the respondent no. 4.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no prima facie material and evidence for satisfaction that there was more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction to the extent that evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction. The court dismissed the revision, stating that it was devoid of merits and deserved to be dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to summon the respondent no. 4 as a conspirator to face trial with the accused under section 319 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretionary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the requirement of strong and cogent evidence to invoke this power, as established in the judgments of Shiv Prakash Mishra vs. State of U.P., Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, and Brijendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision, stating that it was devoid of merits and deserved to be dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.
2. By means of instant criminal revision, revisionist has assailed the impugned order dated 10.8.2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Deoria by which the learned Judge has dismissed the application 131 Kha under section 319 Cr.P.C. in Session Trial No. 134 of 2018 (State vs. Ramkeshwar and Others), under Section 364 IPC for summoning the respondent no. 4, Satendra @ Santosh Mall as conspirator to face trial with the accused, respondent nos. 2 and 3, who are already facing trail.
3. Factual matrix of the case in brief is that the informant/ revisionist lodged F.I.R. at P.S. Kotwali on 2.10.2012 at 6:25 hours stating therein that she is resident of village Parwa Tarwa (Parsia Mall), P.S. Kotwali, Deoria. Her uncle Santosh Mall @ Satendra Mall has got executed a fraudulent sale deed of property of her father in the name of his wife. She had gone to the court of SDM, Deoria in connection with that sale deed and after getting her statement recorded, she came to Kotwali. Her father went to Tehsil from there and she left for her village. When she reached near overbridge, her co-villagers Ramkeshwar Chauhan and Sambha Bhartiya offered her lift on their motorcycle and assured her that they will leave her at her village. As they were also going on same route, she sat at pillion of the motorcycle on their request. However, she noticed on the way that instead of taking her towards village, they were going to Kasaya road and when she asked as to why they had changed the route, they stated that they were taking her away from the village as her uncle has given money to them for her murder. They stopped the motorcycle near Ranchhor Kuti and consumed liquor. She anyhow get herself rescued from the clutches and run towards her village by shouting for help whereupon Gram Pradhan and other persons assembled there and caught one accused and other succeeded to escape from the place. FIR was lodged against Ramkeshwar and Sambha Bhartiya.
4. The victim, in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that Ramkeshwar was caught by the public at around 7:30 pm on 1.10.2012 but Sambha Bhartiya escaped from the place. IO also recorded statement of Durgesh Mall, constable Omkar Nath Tiwari and other witnesses during investigation. This fact surfaced during investigation that Ashok Mall, father of the victim is two brothers. The other is Satendra @ Santosh Mall, the proposed accused Santosh Mall got disputed sale deed executed in the name of his wife Savita which was strongly opposed by the victim and her family and they had gone to the court of SDM on the day of incident to get their statement recorded alongwith number of co-villagers in protest of this act of respondent no. 4. The victim was abducted on the way by the co-accused who are already facing trial. The allegations against the respondent no. 4 are that he conspired with named co-accused persons to get the victim abducted who was to be killed subsequently but she got narrow escaped from the clutches of perpetrators of crime.
5. On commencement of trial, evidence of PW-1 Priyanka Mall, PW-2 Durgesh, PW-3 Tribhuvan was recorded who supported the FIR version in their testimony. The informant moved an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. before the trial court to summon Satendra @ Santosh Mall to face trial together with accused Ramkeshwar and Sambha who are already facing trial in the case. He has been attributed role of chief conspirator in the offence.
6. Learned court below dismissed the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. with observations that proposed accused Satendra @ Santosh is not named in the FIR. No particulars are disclosed during evidence that who has conspired for kidnapping and murder of the informant alongwith co-accused persons and as to how she got rescued herself during cours
Brijendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab
The discretionary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the requirement of strong and cogent evidence to invoke this power.
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, ....
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 court established that the power to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC is contingent upon the existence of prima facie evidence presented during the trial, and that the trial....
The discretionary and extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., requiring strong and cogent evidence to summon accused persons not named in the charge-sheet.
The court held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with strong evidence and cannot be invoked after the trial of co-accused has concluded.
The court emphasized that a prospective accused can only be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if strong and cogent evidence emerges, not merely based on allegations or inconsistencies in witness sta....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court to exercise the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. sparingly and the requirement of strong and cogent evidence against the....
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.