Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Sukhdeo Panse and another - Petitioners
Vs.
Union of India and another - Respondents
M.Cr.C. No.39403, 40956 of 2018 with Cri. Revision No.5056 of 2018
Decided On : 29-01-2019
For the Petitioners: Shri. Anil Khare learend Senior Counsel with Shri. H.S. Chhabra, counsel, Shri. Pushpendra Dubey, learned Counsel, Shri. Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rahul Sharma
For the Respondent: Shri J.K. Jain, Assistant Solicitor General and Shri. Raghavendra Kumar, learned counsel
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to arraign additional accused under Sec.319 of the Cr.P.C. based on the evidence adduced before the Trial Court, and this power should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the circumstances warrant it.
Headnote:
Sec.319 of the Cr.P.C - Criminal Procedure Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sec.319 of the Cr.P.C - The court allowed the application filed by respondent No.2 under Sec.319 of the Cr.P.C., and all the petitioners were arraigned as accused and summons ordered to be issued against them. The court examined the evidence and found sufficient material against some of the petitioners to be arraigned as accused under Sec.319 of the Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved incidents of unlawful assembly, destruction of dwelling houses, and the murder of Bondru and his wife Dodarbai. The CBI filed a charge sheet against accused persons, and during the trial, respondent No.2 filed an application under Sec.311 of the Cr.P.C. to examine additional witnesses. Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed an application under Sec.319 of the Cr.P.C. to arraign the petitioners as accused, which was allowed by the trial court. The petitioners challenged this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient material available against some of the petitioners to be arraigned as accused under Sec.319 of the Cr.P.C. However, the court found that there was not sufficient material against one of the petitioners, and the proceedings against that petitioner were quashed.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient material to arraign the petitioners as accused under Sec.319 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles outlined in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2014) 3 SCC 92 and considered the evidence adduced before the Trial Court to determine if there was sufficient material against the petitioners to be arraigned as accused under Sec.319 of the Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition in part, quashing the proceedings against one of the petitioners and dismissing the other petitions. The court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and directed the trial court to decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by the observations made.
The petitioners in these three petitions are different individuals while the respondents No.1 and 2 are common. Since all the above petitions arise from a common order dated 12.9.2018, impugned herein, passed by Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur, in ST No.900486/2018, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. The Special court of CBI has allowed the application filed by the respondent No.2 under Sec.319 of the Cr.P.C., and all the petitioners are arraigned as an accused and summons ordered to be issued against them.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of M.Cr.C. No.39403/2018, are being mentioned, which are common in all the petitions.
3. Facts giving rise to the instant petitions, in short, are that Police Station Multai, Distt.Betul, received an information about the unnatural death of one Bondru Pardi, where upon a merg case No.94/2007 dated 12.9.2007 under Sec.174 of the Cr.P.C., was registered; and the same time another information was received about the unnatural death of Dodarbai, wife of Bondru, who was found dead in the well of one Ajay Rao Deshmukh, on the basis of which merg case No.95/2007 dated 12.9.2007 was registered under Sec.174 of the Cr.P.C, at P.S. Multai, Distt. Betul. Both the merg cases were investigated by SDOP, Sarni, Distt. Betul, and this fact emerged that one lady belonging to Kunbis caste was raped and killed by Pardis on 9.9.2017. After that incident, Kunbis and Panwar community of the locality became violent and demanded the removal of Pardhidhana Basti, where the members of Pardhi community were settled and each given a plot to construct a house by the government. Some members constructed pakka houses and some constructed dwelling units. The respondent No.2 Alsia Pardhi was also the resident of Pardhidhana Basti. The persons of Kunbis and Panwar community constituted an unlawful assembly and destroyed the dwelling houses of Pardhidhana Basti, which was objected by some of the members of Pardhi community. After inquiry, the SDOP Sarni, submitted a report, registered as Crime No.643/2008 Dt. 25.9.2008 at P.S. Multai, for the offences punishable under Sec.147, 149 and 302 of the IPC. The respondent No.2 was not satisfied with the investigation of Crime No.643/2008 and alleged that some women of Pardhi community were raped by the assailants, and filed a write petition before Hon. the High Court, registered as W.P. No.15189/2007, which was finally disposed of with a direction that the case be handed over to the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation with a direction to take over the investigation of crime relating to the death of Bondru and his wife Dodarbai, and bring the investigation to its logical conclusion in accordance with the law.
4. CBI registered a case No.RC 0082009-S-0017 by treating the FIR No.643/2007 under similar sections against unknown villagers. After completion of investigation, the CBI submitted the charge sheet before Special Court and also mentioned that the investigation against other members of the unlawful assemble is still continuing under Sec.173(8) of the Cr.P.C., and supplementary charge sheet would be filed against them. The court of Special Judge, framed charges against the charge sheeted accused persons and recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses. During trial, the respondent No.2 filed an application under Sec.311 of the Cr.P.C, to examine witness Narad Singh, Bharat Singh, Saudagar, Langad and Rampyari on the ground that their statement were recorded, during investigation, under Sec.161 of the Cr.P.C., but the respondent No.1 has not listed these witnesses in the list of witnesses and most of the witnesses listed in the list belong to the same community of the accused. The proposed witnesses are members of Pardhi community and are the eye witnesses. The trial Court after considering the reply, disposed of the application filed under Sec.311 of the Cr.P.C., by order dated 10.10.2013. The respondent No.1 agreed to examine Rampyari
