Gurdeep Chand v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Initially FIR under Section 306 IPC was registered on the basis of complaint made by complainant-Gurdeep Chand against accused Paramjit Singh for abetment of suicide by his daughter Rita Rani. He stated that his daughter Rita Rani was married to Paramjit Singh @ Pamma in February 1998 and two children from the said wedlock were also born. Rita Rani died on 30.1.2007 and challan under Section 302 IPC was presented only against Paramjit Singh. As per opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was due to cardiac arrest consistent with Asphyxia which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all the Crl. Revn. No. 585 of 2009 (2) injuries on the person of deceased-Rita Rani were anti mortem in nature. During investigation, Sant Singh, Pritam Kaur, Baldev Singh and Jasvir Kaur were not found guilty of murder of Rita Rani and they were found innocent by the Police. The complainant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of accused respondents No.3 to 5 which was dismissed and the revision petition filed challenging the aforesaid order was also dismissed. Mr. Sandeep Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner has specifically named regarding commission of offences by respondents No.3 to 5, therefore, there are sufficient grounds on record for summoning respondents No.3 to 5. A conjoint reading of oral as well as medical evidence clearly shows that the respondents have committed the offences for which they should have been summoned to face trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Rajbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 195 in support of his contention. Reply on behalf of respondents No.3 to 5 has been filed and the same is on record. Mr. Sunil Chadha, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 submits that mere statement of the complainant ipso facto is no ground for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He further submits that respondents No.3 to 5 were living separately and have nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. Moreover, there is no direct evidence against them for issuance of warrants. It was also argued by Mr. Chadha that even the statement of the complainant demolishes his own case as set up by him in the FIR, as vague and baseless allegations have been made. There was no fresh investigation and also no occasion to declare that the cause of asphyxia was homicidal. It is also clear from the statement of Dr. Suman Lata that no case of culpable homicide is made out and the cause of death Crl. Revn. No. 585 of 2009 (3) was due to cardiac arrest consistent with Asphyxia, which was held to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In report dated

20.3.2007, the Board of Directors also, gave same opinion. On 4.5.2007 second opinion was sought from Dr. Suman Lata and according to her cause of Asphyxia was homicidal but in between the period 20.3.2007 to

4.5.2007, no fresh medical examination/report was there. The dimensions of the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased does not show that she died on account of either having suffered the said injuries or the said injuries could be the result of asphyxia. The statement as well as supplementary statement of the complainant are contradictory which cannot be a ground for summoning respondents No.3 to 5. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Ram Niwas & Anr. 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 501, of this Court in Harjinder Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 332 and of Delhi High Court in Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand and others 2003 (3) RCR (Criminal) 823. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents on the file. It appears from the record that initially, on the basis of statement made by Gurdeep Chand, a case under Section 306 IPC was registered against Paramjit Singh for abetment of suicide by Rita Rani and after her death, Section 302 IPC was added and challan was presented under Section 302 IPC. During investigation, Sant Singh, Pritam Kaur, Baldev Singh and Jasvir Kaur were found innocent and were kept in column No.2 of the challan. Complainant-Gurdeep Chand repeated the same allegations as have been made before the police authorities and all these persons were found innocent by the police. Accused Pritam Kaur expired during the pendency of proceedings and the present revision Crl. Revn. No. 585 of 2009 (4) petition has been filed against three respondents. There is limited scope of interference in the revision petition as the Court must satisfy itself about the existence of an extra ordinary situation. No doubt the powers are with the Court but for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the case is to be made by the complainant by adducing additional evidence which has not been done in the present case. Section 319 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:-

319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. (1) where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- Section (1) then-- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” Crl. Revn. No. 585 of 2009 (5) It has been held by Delhi High Court in Savitri Devi's case (supra) that there is a growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband. This view has further been affirmed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others 2002 (2) RCR (Crl.) 695 (SC) that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. This Court in Satish Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 335 (P&H) while relying upon the judgment in the case of Michael Machado and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another 2000 (2) RCR (Crl.) 75 (SC) has observed that quality of evidence before the Court should be of such a type that Court can be hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of newly adduced accused being convicted. In the present case, no additional evidence has come out from the statement of the complainant. Moreover, the statement of the complainant has already been considered by the police and respondents No.3 to 5 were found innocent. The statement of the complainant ipso facto cannot be made basis for summoning of respondents No.3 to 5 under Section319 Cr.P.C. It appears that the petitioner has tried to rope all the family members. The present respondents are father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, who have not been found involved in the commission of offence, which is clear from the statement of the petitioner that respondents No.3 to 5 were residing separately and only Paramjit Singh and Rita Rani along with their two children were residing together in one house. Although Section 319 empowers the Court to proceed against any person, whose name does not find mention in the FIR for which he could be tried along with other accused. The power under Section 319 must be regarded and considered as incidental and ancillary to the main Crl. Revn. No. 585 of 2009 (6) power to take cognizance as part of the normal process in the administration of justice. The Court is not merely required to take note of the fact that name of the person who has not been named as an accused in the FIR and has surfaced during the trial but the Court is also required to consider whether such evidence would be sufficient to convict the person being summoned. Since issuance of summons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. entails denovo trial, loose number of witnesses already examined and their re-examination could prejudice the case of the prosecution and trial would also be delayed, the court is to exercise such power with great care and precaution In the present case, on the quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is difficult to hold with any amount of certainty that the same would be in all probability secure conviction against the alleged accused. There is nothing except the statement of complainant to connect the respondents to the alleged offence. It is not proper to put the respondents to face trial by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Concededly, the matter was investigated by the police after the FIR had been recorded on the statement of the complainant. Respondents No.3 to 5 had been found innocent and were placed in the column No. II. Thereafter, during the course of proceedings, the statement of the complainant was also recorded, which in fact, was merely a reiteration of what has been stated in the FIR. No other evidence was there before the Court on the basis of which complicity of respondents No.3 to 5 could be established. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Michael Machado's case (supra) has observed as under:- “11. The basic requirement for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some Crl. Revn. No. 585 of 2009 (7) other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well as tried along with the already arraigned accused.

12. But even then, what is conferred on the Court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words “the Court may proceed against such person”. The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against each other persons.” For summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C., there has to be some evidence before the Court which would indicate the complicity of the Crl. Revn. No. 585 of 2009 (8) persons who are sought to be summoned or some material should have come on record which may prompt the Court to believe that the persons so accused are likely to be involved, and their conviction is likely to result in the eventuality of their facing the trial, and the onslaught of the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution. The mere statement, ipso facto, cannot form the basis of summoning the persons under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The revision being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

18.2.2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No Crl. Revn. No. 585 of 2009 (9)