Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, M. R. SHAH, JJ.
SARTAJ SINGH - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ETC. - RESPONDENT
Criminal Appeal Nos. 298-299 of 2021
Decided on : 15-03-2021
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Court can exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. even on the basis of statement made in examination-in-chief of witness concerned and Court need not wait till cross-examination of such a witness and Court need not wait for evidence against accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination – A person not named in FIR or a person though named in FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., provided from evidence (may be on the basis of evidence collected in form of statement made in Examination-in-chief of witness concerned), such person can be tried along with accused already facing trial – Even in a case where stage of giving opportunity to complainant to file a protest petition urging upon trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in FIR but not implicated in charge-sheet can be summoned to face trial provided during trial some evidence surfaces against proposed accused. (Paras 6.2 and 6.4)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 319 – Attempt to murder and other charges – Summoning of additional accused to face trial – If on the basis of Examination-in-chief of witness Court is satisfied that there is a prima facie case against proposed accused, Court may in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. array such a person as accused and summon him to face trial – Right from beginning appellant/injured eye witness, who was first informant, disclosed names of private respondents and specifically named them in FIR – But on the basis of some enquiry by DSP they were not charge-sheeted – It is not that investigating officer did not find case against private respondents and therefore they were not charge-sheeted – Trial Court was justified in summoning private respondents to face trial as accused on the basis of deposition of appellant – injured eye witness – High Court has materially erred in quashing and setting aside order passed by Trial Court summoning accused to face trial in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court is not sustainable in law and on facts and is beyond scope and ambit of Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court quashed and set aside and order passed by Trial Court summoning private respondents to face trial restored. (Paras 7, 8.1 and 8.2)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.08.2020 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in revision application by which High Court has allowed the said revision application and quashed and set aside the order dated 21.04.2018 passed by Trial Court summoning private respondents herein, original informant has preferred present appeals.
Findings of Court:
High Court has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the order passed by Trial Court summoning the accused to face trial in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., on reasoning mentioned hereinabove. Even observations made by High Court are on probability. Therefore, impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law and on facts and is beyond scope and ambit of Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.08.2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in revision application bearing CRR No. 3238 of 2018 and CRMM No. 55631 of 2018 by which the High Court has allowed the said revision application and quashed and set aside the order dated 21.04.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court summoning the private respondents herein, the original informant has preferred the present appeals.
2. As per the case of the appellant herein-original informant, the appellant was attacked by the private respondents herein and other accused persons on 27.07.2016. That the appellant got severely injured. That a FIR was lodged by the appellant herein in which he stated that besides Manjeet Singh, Narvair Singh and other persons namely Palwinder Singh son of Ran Singh, Satkar Singh son of Rajwant Singh, Rajwant Singh son of Gurcharan Singh and Sukhdeep Singh son of Satnam Singh had inflicted injuries on his person. It was stated that while he was going in his car - Mahendra XUV-500 for personal work and stopped his car on the left side to answer the phone call, Manjeet Singh son of Mahinder Singh, who was coming in his car from Assandh side and a lady was sitting by his side, stopped his car next to him and after rolling down his window threatened him for having ploughed his barley crop in his capacity as the Sarpanch and while going back home after finishing his work, he found that a car was parked diagonally on the road. The same car was parked in which Manjeet Singh was traveling and when he took out his head to look for the driver, Palwinder Singh son of Ran Singh, Satkar Singh son of Rajwant Singh armed with lathies and were hiding on the right side of road came and attached him and gave lathi blows on the head. Thereafter, 10-12 persons came running towards the car from both sides of the road. It was further stated in the FIR that Manjeet Singh son of Mahinder Singh, Amarjit Singh son of Ran Singh, Rajwant Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, Narvai Singh son of Tarlok Singh, Sukhdev Singh son of Satnam Singh, residents of Bandrala were holding lathies and Gandasis in their hands. Rajwant Singh came running towards his side and switched off the engine of the car and also opened the door lock of driver side of the car. Manjeet Singh opened the door from outside. Manjeet Singh and Rajwant Singh both dragged him out of the car and Rajwant Singh raised a Lalkara that "today there is an opportunity to kill him". On saying this, Amarjeet Singh, who was armed with Gandasi gave a blow on his head and Manjeet Singh, who was armed with Gandasi gave a blow on his left ear. Then Rajwant Singh who was armed with Gandasi gave blow from its front side. Thereafter, all these persons gave number of blows upon him and he started feeling unconscious and fell on the ground on his knees. He thought that they will kill him today and he was seeing his death in front of his eyes. They he took his revolver from the holster tied around his waist and fired with the same and he did not know to whom and where the shots hit. Those persons started running away upon his firing and while running away, some persons gave blows on his right shoulder and due to which his revolver fell down and those assailants ran away and he also in order to save himself came back towards Adarsh School. He entered the Dera of Chhinna situated near the Adarsh School, where Bhupinder Singh and his father were present, whom he informed that some persons wanted to kill him and kindly take him to Police Station. Thereafter, Bhupinder Singh @ Pinda took him to Assandh on his motor cycle and after sometime he became unconscious, where the doctor gave him first aid and on seeing the seriousness of injuries referred him to General Hospital, Karnal. In the meantime, his family members also reached the Hospital, Assandh took him to General Hospital Karnal in the car and after considering the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
