Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 1293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Anand Pathak, J.
Indra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1118 of 2022
Decided On : 14-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Shri Ravi Ballabh Tripathi -Advocate., for the Appellant; Shri Bps Chauhan-Public Prosecutor For State And Shri Anand Purohit & B.S.Gour-Advocates For Complainant., for the Respondent

The judgment established the need for strong and cogent evidence before summoning an accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and emphasized the discretionary nature of the power, citing relevant case law.

Headnote:
Alibi - Criminal Revision - Section 319/397/401 of Cr.P.C. - [Sections 302, 307,147, 148, 149, 506-B of IPC] - The court discussed the plea of alibi raised by the petitioner, the interpretation of Section 319 of Cr.P.C., and the requirement for summoning an accused. The court emphasized the need for strong and cogent evidence before summoning an accused and the discretionary nature of the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The judgment referenced relevant case law to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute between the complainant and the accused, resulting in the death of the complainant's father. The prosecution moved an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to summon the present petitioner as an accused based on the complainant's reference to the petitioner's involvement in the incident.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plea of alibi raised by the petitioner was supported by statements of witnesses, including a police constable and the driver of a police vehicle, who testified to the petitioner's absence at the time of the alleged offense. The court emphasized the need for strong and cogent evidence before summoning an accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court erred in allowing the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioner based solely on the complainant's reference to the petitioner's involvement in the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only when sufficient material exists to summon an accused. It emphasized the discretionary nature of the power and the need for strong and cogent evidence before summoning an accused.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was allowed, and the impugned order to summon the petitioner was quashed. The prosecution and trial court were given the liberty to renew the prayer if other prosecution witnesses disclosed incriminating material against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant criminal revision is preferred by the petitioner under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12/3/2022 passed by trial Court, whereby, application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner as accused has been allowed.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 20/7/2019 one Dehati Nalisi was registered by complainant Pradeep Singh stating that his agricultural field which is adjacent to the field of Vinod, some new saplings were tried to be extirpated by Vinod which led to some dispute and therefore, Police (100 dial vehicle) was called which intervened in the matter and advised both the parties to report the matter to the concerning police station. When complainant Pradeep Singh and his father were going police station on motorcycle then on a culvert accused Vinod, Shailendra, Indra Singh (present petitioner), Jaswant and Rajesh started hurling verbal abuse and threatened to kill them. When they passed the culvert then Vinod and Shailendra opened fire on them. Vinod fired on father of the complainant namely Sitaram, who sustained injury on chest and fell done. All assailants fled while threatening them for dire consequences if they report the incident to police.

3. Father of the complainant namely Sitaram taken to Hospital; where, he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, Marg was registered and Dehati Nalisi bearing No. 0/19 was registered. On the basis of Dehati Nalisi, FIR was registered for offence under Sections 302, 307,147, 148, 149, 506-B of IPC.

4. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer as well as higher authorities recorded statements of different witnesses. Statement of Satyanarayan, Anod Singh, Rajendra and Police Constable Kamlesh Sharma and pilot of 100 dial vehicle Madan Shamra were alsorecorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. All referred the fact that Indra Singh i.e. present petitioner after initial verbal abuse at agricultural field sat in the vehicle and rode with Police Constable Kamlesh from spot to Police Station. Before reaching to the Police Station, information came to them about said shootout, therefore, all went there directly, therefore, all these witnesses have specifically stated about the presence of present petitioner with them in the vehicle. He was allegedly not present on the spot when alleged offence under Section 302 of IPC has been committed by other accused persons.

5. Apparently, charge-sheet was filed against other accused persons and since present petitioner was not found on spot in investigation, therefore, charge-sheet was not filed against present petitioner. Charges were framed and trial proceeded.

6. Pradeep Singh as prosecution witness No. 1 appeared before the trial Court and referred the name of present petitioner also at the time of incident when his father was injured at the hands of accused persons. Thereafter, prosecution moved an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for impleadment of present petitioner as accused which vide impugned order dated 12/3/2022 was allowed and trial Court issued summons to the petitioner for appearance. Therefore, petitioner has preferred this petition.

7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Kamlesh Sharma who happens to be the Police Constable who reached on spot when dispute for the first time erupted and gave counseling to aggrieved parties and thereafter, present petitioner sat in the vehicle of police (100 dial vehicle) and was moving towards different direction, therefore, he could not have been present on the spot at the time of incident. Not only Police Constable Kamlesh Sharma but the pilot of the 100 dial vehicle namely Madan Sharma referred the said fact in categorical terms, therefore, Investigating Officer rightly believed them and based upon plea of alibi did not charge-sheet the present petitioner. Other witnesses, Rajendra Singh, Satyanarayan and Anod Singh in their respective statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. also supported the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document