Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Raj Beer Singh, J.
Vinay Pratap Singh - Revisionist
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. - 3962 of 2022
Decided On : 03-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Revisionist : Rajrshi Gupta, Arun Kumar Misra, Man Mohan Mishra
For the Opposite Party :Gaurav Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate

The discretionary nature of the power under Section 319 CrPC and the requirement of strong and cogent evidence to summon additional accused during trial.

Headnote:
Section 319 CrPC - Summoning of Accused - 319 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 319 CrPC - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of Section 319 CrPC and cited case laws to establish the legal framework for summoning additional accused during trial. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of the power under Section 319 CrPC and the requirement of strong and cogent evidence to exercise this power. The court highlighted the need for evidence from witnesses and the higher standard of proof for summoning an accused under Section 319 CrPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a 'Tilak' ceremony where celebratory firing led to the death of two individuals. The revisionist, accused of the offence, filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused, which was rejected by the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the evidence presented did not establish a prima facie case for summoning the additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of the power under Section 319 CrPC and the need for strong and cogent evidence to exercise this power.
Issues: The key issue was whether the Trial Court's rejection of the revisionist's application under Section 319 CrPC was justified based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretionary nature of the power under Section 319 CrPC and the requirement of strong and cogent evidence to exercise this power. The court highlighted the need for evidence from witnesses and the higher standard of proof for summoning an accused under Section 319 CrPC.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the Court upheld the Trial Court's decision to reject the revisionist's application under Section 319 CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3, Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 to 6 and learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against order dated 08.09.2022, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/F.T.C.-I, Ballia in Session Trial No. 224 of 2008 (State vs. Vinay Singh), Case Crime No.64 of 2006, under Section 302 IPC, police station Haldi, district Ballia, whereby the application filed by the revisionist / accused under Section 319 CrPC, has been rejected.

3. Perusal of record shows that the informant of the case, namely, Radhey Shyam Mishra has lodged the first information report of this case on 5/6.12.2006 at 00:30 hours, alleging that on 05.12.2006 his son Manoj Mishra has gone to see his uncle Brijesh Chaubey at Babuvela. There Manoj along with his uncle Brijesh Chaube was attending a ‘Tilak’ ceremony organised by Ashok Kumar Singh. During that function while programme of dance was going on, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Vaibhav Singh s/o Dr Ashok Kumar Singh, Dr. Abhishek Singh and Dr. Vinod both s/o Dr Sita Ram and some of their family members came to see the dance programme and they were in drunk condition and at around 11.00 PM, they started making indiscriminate celebratory firing. One of the bullet has hit Manoj Kumar and another at one Chandeshwari Singh and resultantly, Manoj Kumar and the said Chandeshwari died of gun shot injuries. The first information report was lodged against four accused persons namely, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Vaibhav Singh, Dr. Abhishek Singh and Dr. Vinod Singh. During investigation they were granted bail. Later on Dr Sita Ram has made an application to the higher police authorities for fair and impartial investigation. Consequently, the investigation was transferred from district Ballia to Mau and further investigation was conducted by one R.D. Shukla. It appears that during investigation the involvement of said named accused persons was not found and after completion of investigation, on 29.05.2008 charge-sheet under section 302 IPC was submitted against the revisionist/accused Vinay Pratap Singh and that said four named accused persons were exonerated.

4. It appears that later on by order 20.11.2008 the State Government made direction for further investigation by the C.B.C.I.D. but meanwhile the case was committed to the Court of Session on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the investigating officer R.D. Shukla. While the matter was being further investigated, the proceedings of the Session trial remained continue. On 04.09.2009 the investigating officer of C.B.C.I.D., after completing investigation, filed a report with conclusion that the offence under Section 304, 286 IPC has been committed by Vinay Pratap Singh and Dr. Sita Ram Singh. The revisionist Vinay Pratap Singh has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings pending against him, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2010, by which the prayer for quashing of proceedings was refused and a direction was made to the Trial Court to decide the applicant’s application which was pending before the Trial Court. Thereafter, the application of revisionist/accused (paper no.53 ka) was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 07.08.2010 holding that the applicant/revisionist is being tried on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by the local police. The revisionist/applicant has filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16524 of 2010 against the order dated 07.08.2010, wherein, revisionist/accused was granted interim protection but later on in view of law laid down in case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2018 SC 2039, the proceedings of session trial court were re-started against the revisionist/accused. Thereafter, the revisionist/accused