Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(UK) 175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Sarabjeet and Others - Revisionists
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 253 of 2022
Decided On : 28-06-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the revisionists :Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A.

The judgment established the standard of satisfaction required for summoning a person under Section 319 of the Code, emphasizing the need for evidence stronger than a prima facie case and capable of leading to conviction if unrebutted.

Headnote:
Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Summoning of Revisionists under IPC and POCSO Act - 313, 34, 506, 323 of IPC and Section 16/17 of the Act
Fact of the Case:

The victim lodged an FIR against Ravish Kumar for rape under the pretext of marriage. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Ravish Kumar. Subsequently, the victim named the revisionists as the persons who demanded dowry, aborted the foetus of the victim, and did marpeet with her.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the evidence did not meet the standard of satisfaction required to summon the revisionists under Section 319 of the Code. The victim's statements were inconsistent and lacked medical and documentary evidence. The court concluded that the application under Section 319 of the Code should have been rejected.
Issues: The main issue was whether the revisionists could be summoned under Section 319 of the Code based on the victim's statements and evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the standard of satisfaction required for summoning a person under Section 319 of the Code, emphasizing that the evidence should be stronger than a prima facie case and capable of leading to conviction if unrebutted.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order summoning the revisionists under Section 319 of the Code and rejected the prosecution's application under Section 319 of the Code.

JUDGMENT :

1. The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 09.05.2022, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2021, State vs. Ravish Kumar, by the Court of learned F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By the impugned order, an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) has been allowed, and the revisionist no. 2 Jagdish and revisionist no. 3 Shiv Kumar have been summoned under Sections 313, 34, 506 of IPC and Section 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“the Act”). Revisionist no. 4 Dinesh has been summoned under Sections 313, 34, 506, 323 of IPC and Section 16/17 of the Act. The Revisionists Reeta, Neetu, Nisha, Nidhi and Naveen have been summoned under Section 323 IPC and Section 16/17 of the Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy are in very short compass, they are as follows. The victim lodged an FIR at Police Station Madho Tanda, District Pilibhit under Section 376 IPC against Ravish Kumar, it was registered as FIR No. 281 of 2020. According to it, the victim and Ravish Kumar befriended in the year 2017, when they were in college. Ravish Kumar proposed the victim. Ravish Kumar established physical relations with the victim for three years, under the pretext of marriage. He also spoke to the father and other family members of the victim; but, subsequently Ravish Kumar declined to marry and demanded dowry. This FIR, was subsequently transferred to the Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. It was lodged as FIR No. 283 of 2022 against Ravish Kumar. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Ravish Kumar, for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act, which is the basis of Special Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2021.

4. On 30.10.2020, charge under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act, was framed against Ravish Kumar, to which he denied and claimed trial. In the trial, statement of the victim as PW1 was recorded on 18.11.2021. It is thereafter an application under Section 319 of the Code was moved by the prosecution, which has been allowed by the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that the order is bad in the eyes of law. According to him, initially when the FIR was lodged in District Pilibhit, there were no allegations against the revisionists. When the matter was still within the District Pilibhit, the victim was examined by the Investigating Officer (“the IO”). Then also, the victim only reiterated the version of the FIR and levelled allegations against Ravish Kumar only. But, it is argued that, soon after the FIR was transferred and lodged at Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, when the victim was again interrogated by the IO on 11.11.2020, she named the revisionists also as the persons who demanded dowry, aborted the foetus of the victim and did marpeet with her.

6. It is argued that despite charge-sheet having been submitted against Ravish Kumar, the victim in the court again, named the revisionists as the persons who aborted her foetus and demanded dowry. It is argued that the statements are without any medical support and there is no documentary evidence.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists would also submit that, in fact, the victim was blackmailing the family members of Ravish Kumar and was demanding land to close the matter. The revisionist no. 3, Shiv Kumar, who happens to be the uncle of Ravish Kumar had also moved an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code, in which he had also enclosed a telephonic conversation, which reveals that, in fact, the victim had demanded land in return to close the matter.

8. It is argued that it is not a case in which the revisionists could have been summoned under Section 319 of the Code. The evidence of PW1, the Victim does not