The court clarified that 'evidence' under Section 319 Cr.P.C. includes statements made during examination-in-chief, allowing for the summoning of additional accused based on such evidence.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned APP for the respondent no.1 State and learned advocate Mr. Rahul Sharma for respondent no.2 waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respective parties. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.

2. The revisionist is challenging the order passed below Exh.154 dated 06.06.2024 under section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), moved by him as an accused in Sessions Case No.31 of 2021 in connection with C.R. No.11216011200075 of 2020, registered on 24.03.2020 for the offence punishable under sections 304A and 279 of Indian Penal Code and sections 177, 184 and 134(b) of Motor Vehicle Act, and thereafter revisionist was chargesheeted under sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The relief prayed was to join the witness who had depose during the trial to be joined as co-accused. Vide order dated 06.06.2024, the prayer was rejected.

3. Mr. A.S. Timbalia, learned advocate for the applicant proposes not to invite any reasons after this Court discloses its mind, but for the purpose of clarity and when the issue raised is of vital importance, this Court considers to deliberate on provisions of law.

4. Advocate Mr. Timbalia submitted that investigating agency has recorded the statement of one witness named Nilesh Mukeshbhai Solanki on 27.03.2022, and the statement of Nilesh Mukeshbhai Solanki disclosed that he had accompanied the present revisionist accused, and that he was in the vehicle, which met with an accident with the deceased, which according to learned advocate Mr. Timbalia, anything could have been planned, and it was duly within the knowledge of said witness, and further he accomplice himself during the crime. Mr. Timbalia submitted that on examination of Nilesh Mukeshbhai Solanki as Prosecution Witness No.11 at Exh.61, as prima facie evidence had come on record that he was equally responsible for the offence, was required to be joined as an accused, thereby applicant had moved the Court under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to join him as a co-accused, but it came to be rejected.

4.1 Advocate Mr. Timbalia has relied on the judgment of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab And Others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92, stated that this is the much celebrated judgment and the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down ultimate law for section 319 Cr.P.C. explaining the stage at which the power under section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised. The meaning of expression ‘evidence’ been used in section 319 and the power to be exercised by the Court to invoke the provision of section 319 Cr.P.C., are finally concluded.

4.2 Advocate Mr. Timbalia submitted that the evidence, which comes on record during the course of examination of witness, could be made a basis and if the Court comes to the conclusion that an offence has been committed by the witness, then Court should exercise the power as entrusted, since that would be necessary to build the faith in the judicial system.

4.3 Advocate Mr. Timbalia submitted that the word ‘evidence’ used in section 319(1) of Cr.P.C. contemplates that the same may not have been put under the test of cross-examination and would fall under section 3 of the Evidence Act, which would mean and include, all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry and trial. Advocate Mr. Timbalia submitted that the offence originally alleged against the present revisionist were under section 304A and 279 of the IPC. Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC, are reproduced hereinunder:

“279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.— Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

304A. Causing death by negligence.— Whoever causes the death of any person by