[2026:RJ-JD:2329]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1474/2023 Sakaram S/o Shri Hakmaji, Aged About 64 Years, B/c- Meghwal, R/o- Sanfada, P.s. Kotwali, Dist. Jalore, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Bhanwar Singh S/o Hem Singh, B/c- Rajput, R/o-

Sanfada, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).

3. Madan Singh S/o Hem Singh, B/c- Rajput, R/o- Sanfada, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).

4. Mehar Singh S/o Ratan Singh, B/c- Rajput, R/o- Sanfada, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).

5. Madhu Singh S/o Mohabbat Singh, B/c- Rajput, R/o-

Sanfada, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Prasad For Respondent(s) : Mr. SR Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

15/01/2026

1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 16.09.2023 passed by learned trial Judge whereby the application moved by petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for impleading three more accused has been dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through order under challenge.

3. It is observed that the learned trial court has prudently examined the material collected during investigation and trial, particularly the statement of PW-1 Vija Ram, PW-10 Heeraram and PW-11 Khetaram who have turned hostile and also the statement of PW-12 Police Inspector Shrawan Kumar, as per whom, he was present on the crime site and found the accused Bhanwar Lal endeavoring to pacify the parties.

4.The principle of law enunciated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 1400, has been duly and adequately followed by the learned trial Judge in its correct perspective. It is pertinent to note that after a complete and thorough investigation, the police consciously found that the left-out persons were not participants in the alleged occurrence, and even the evidence that surfaced during the course of trial against them is neither cogent nor of a substantive nature. In such circumstances, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh (supra), this Court finds that no adequate or compelling material exists on record to justify taking cognizance or issuing process against the proposed accused persons, namely, Bhanwar Singh, Madan Singh, Mehar Singh and Madho Singh. The law is well settled that the discretionary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where strong and convincing evidence surfaces during trial, which, if unrebutted, may reasonably lead to conviction. Mere wild, bald or omnibus allegations, unsupported by reliable evidence, cannot form the basis for subjecting a person to the rigours of a criminal trial. I, therefore, find no reason for interference in the matter.

5. At this stage, it would be apposite to reiterate the legal position governing the scope and ambit of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The power conferred upon the Court under the said provision is an extraordinary and discretionary power, intended to be exercised with utmost circumspection. The satisfaction of the Court must be founded on evidence which is more than prima facie in nature and which demonstrates a strong likelihood of the proposed accused having committed the offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that such power is not meant to be invoked merely because some evidence has come on record, but only when such evidence is of sterling worth and unimpeachable quality, capable of sustaining a conviction. The underlying object of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the real culprits do not escape from the clutches of law; however, it is equally imperative that innocent persons are not unnecessarily dragged into criminal proceedings, thereby subjected to unnecessary harassment and prejudice. In the absence of solid, credible and trustworthy evidence indicating culpability of the left-out persons, invocation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. would amount to an abuse of the process of la