Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 73

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
Sanju and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 2076 of 2019
Decided On : 23-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Hari Prakash Mishra, Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava.
For the Respondents: Chandra Prakash Pandey, Dur Vijay Singh.

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, and the utilization of evidence collected during investigation for corroboration and support of the evidence recorded by the court to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - Summoning of Accused - Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Section 319 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the legal provisions and principles under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and its interpretation in light of various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The court emphasized the discretionary and extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the need for strong and cogent evidence to exercise this power. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence brought before the court during trial and the utilization of material collected during investigation for corroboration and support of the evidence recorded by the court to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the summoning of accused persons under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The informant had lodged an FIR alleging the murder of her husband and his friend. The trial court, after recording the evidence of the informant and a witness, summoned the revisionists as accused. The informant later disowned the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and stated that she had stopped prosecuting the case against the named accused persons. The investigation revealed the complicity of a new set of accused persons, and the witnesses did not implicate the accused persons who were already facing trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had committed a legal error by ignoring the course of investigation, the reasons behind exoneration of the revisionists, and the filing of chargesheet against a new set of accused persons. The court held that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation should have been considered for corroboration and support of the evidence recorded by the court to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the court below for fresh consideration.
Issues: The issues involved the summoning of accused persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the disownment of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the informant, and the complicity of a new set of accused persons revealed during investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for strong and cogent evidence to exercise the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It highlighted the discretionary and extraordinary nature of this power and the duty of the court to ensure that the real culprit does not go unpunished. The judgment underscored the importance of considering the evidence collected during investigation for corroboration and support of the evidence recorded by the court to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remitted to the court below for fresh consideration of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in accordance with the law and the observations made in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as Sri Deepak Kapoor learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that report has been filed by trial judge on dated 06.10.2023, pursuant to order dated 19.09.2023 passed by this Court reads as under:

“Learned counsel for the opposite party referred to the affidavit enclosed in the counter affidavit that on 17.08.2019, an application was moved on behalf of the informant, Munni Devi, before the Court concern in S.T. No. 192A of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. Sanju and Others) that no such application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the revisionist to face the trial, was moved by her. This application was supported by the affidavit.

Learned trial court be directed to submit a report with regard to the status of the aforesaid application moved by the informant within three weeks.

List on 11.10.2023.

Interim order, if any, shall continue till the next date of listing.”

3. Learned trial judge has reported that informant Smt. Munni Devi has moved an application on 17.08.2019 in S.T. No. 192A of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. Sanju and Others), photo copy of which is placed on record. The order is endorsed thereon to the effect that in S.T. No. 192A of 2012 the proceedings remain stayed by the order of Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, the said application cannot be placed on record and same is returned to the applicant.

4. The informant has stated in the said application that she is filing an affidavit with regard to true facts of the case, and said affidavit is placed on record alongwith application. It is stated therein that informant had not instructed her counsel Sri Satyendra Pathak to move this application on 03.04.2019 for summoning Sanju and others, if any application has been moved for summoning Sanju and others, the same is false.

5. Smt. Munni Devi was summoned before the Court in compliance of order dated 19.09.2023 and she has admitted to have filed an application to the effect that application and affidavit filed by her on 17.08.2019 before court below was submitted by her.

6. Instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 02.05.2019 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 7, Farukhabad in Session Trial No. 192 of 2012, State vs. Kashmi Singh, under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. whereby revisionist are summoned to face trial under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of I.P.C. together with the accused who are already facing trial.

7. The facts leading to filing of present revision are that the informant/defacto complainant Munni Devi had lodged an FIR on the basis of a written report at Police Station Mohammadabad, District Farukhabad with averments that on 03.02.2012 her husband Amar Singh had gone to Mohammadabad market by riding a Hero Honda Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. UP-76J-8360 alongwith his friend Man Singh who was sitting on pillion of the motorcycle. She also went to market sitting on pillion of the motorcycle ridden by Tejram. Her husband was coming back from the market alongwith Man Singh and she was also coming back from the market on motorcycle ridden by her relative Dinesh. They came near Shekhpur village at around 06:30 PM, suddenly a white four wheeler came from behind of them, in which Sanju, Raju @ Raje, Ramu @ Ahab Pratap, Manjit Singh @ Bablu, Chandra Mohan, Sarvesh @ Pappu, Anil @ Karu were sitting, these persons stepped out from the car having armed with weapons, and stated that they were waiting for them for long period. One Dalganjan Singh had visited at her home one week ago and stated that he would kill her husband to take revenge of the murder of his brother. These persons killed her husband Amar Singh and his friend Man Singh acting under conspiracy on getting opportunity on said date and time in the presence of the informant and said Dinesh. Accused Sanju fired a shot at her husband by