Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Present: Mr. RM Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. GURDEV SINGH, J. Petitioner, Jaswant Singh, has filed this revision petition against the order dated 12.9.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide which he dismissed the application filed by the State under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for summoning Gayatri, Narender, Sushila, Dalip and Dholu, as additional accused to stand their trial alongwith already arraigned accused Ranbir and Ram Rati under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The facts, in brief, Jaswant Singh- petitioner/complainant married his daughter Parveen Kumari deceased with Ranbir/accused on 23.1.2007. Ram Rati accused is the mother of said Ranbir/accused. The above said persons, who were sought to be summoned as additional accused, are related to him. Gayatri and Narender used to live in the house of Ranbir whereas other accused had been cultivating his land.

The death of the deceased took place on the night intervening 9/10.11.2008. Crl. Revision No. 739 of 2010 2 The petitioner got lodged FIR No. 363 dated 10.11.2008 in Police Station Sadar, Mohindergarh. He narrated therein that at the time of the marriage of his daughter, he gave dowry articles to the accused beyond his capacity. After 9 months of the marriage, she was blessed with a daughter and at that time also, he spent money beyond his capacity. After sometime all the accused started saying that an air conditioner, an inverter, battery and computer be given on account of birth of the daughter and if these articles are not given, they would harass his daughter. He, alongwith respectables of the village, approached the accused and requested them that he would fulfill their demands after getting a job for his daughter who had done JBT course. On 8.11.2008, he received a telephonic call from her daughter at about 1 AM and was told that all the accused had assembled to harass her on account of dowry but the very next day at 8.30 AM, he was informed on telephone that his daughter was lying in the well.

When he went to the house of the accused, he found his daughter lying dead on the cot in the verandah. The investigation was conducted by the police and after completion thereof, only Ranbir and Ram Rati were challaned, whereas names of the other accused were mentioned in column No. 2 of the police report under Section 173 of the Code. On appearance of Ranbir and Ram Rati accused before the trial court, provisions of Section 207 of the Code were complied with by supplying them with the copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution. From those documents sufficient grounds were found presuming that they committed the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A IPC. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty. In the course of trial, statement of the petitioner/complainant was recorded as PW1. The prosecution moved an Crl. Revision No. 739 of 2010 3 application under Section 319 of the Code for summoning the remaining accused as additional accused on the ground that from the statement of the complainant, there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against them for the offences under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. After hearing the arguments of the Public Prosecutor, defence counsel for the accused and going through the record of the case, the Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the application, vide aforesaid order.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was planned conspiracy amongst all the accused and it was in pursuance of that conspiracy that the deceased was murdered by all the accused. During the post-mortem examination, 25 injuries were found on her dead body which falsifies the story putforward by the accused that the deceased had fallen in the well. The cause of death was found to be asphyxia and shock and haemorrhage, which were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Despite the availability of incriminating evidence, the investigating agency did not challan Gayatri, Narender, Sushila, Dalip and Dholu, who were relatives of the husband of the deceased. From the evidence produced during the trial, in the form of the statement of the complainant, it stands proved that all these accused committed the aforesaid offences for which they are liable to be tried alongwith other accused.

He prayed that the revision petition be accepted and they be summoned accordingly. Section 319 of the Code is a special provision. It seeks to meet an extraordinary situation. Though it confers a power of wide amplitude, yet Crl. Revision No. 739 of 2010 4 it is required to be exercised very sparingly. The same should be exercised only when the compelling reason exists for taking action against the person against whom action had not been taken earlier. There is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against the other persons. If a person has not been charge sheeted, he may come within the purview of description of such a person, as contained in Section 319 of the Code. No doubt, the satisfaction of the investigating officer or supervisory officer is not to be treated as determinative as in that eventuality, the very purpose of Section 319 of the Code would be frustrated. Before an order summoning an additional accused is passed, the Court is to form an opinion on the basis of evidence brought before it that a case has been made out that such a person could be tried with other accused.

Mere existence of prima facie case may not serve the purpose. Different standards are required to be applied at different stages. Whereas a prima facie view may be sufficient for taking cognizance of evidence. However, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court must be satisfied that there exists a strong suspicion. While framing charge in terms of Section 227, the Court must consider the entire material on the record to form an opinion that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to a judgment of conviction. Still a higher standard is set up for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code. The ingredients thereof viz (i) an extraordinary case (ii) a case of sparingly exercise of jurisdiction should be satisfied. There must be possibility of the accused being convicted on the basis of evidence brought on the record before he can be summoned as additional accused. It is not, therefore, that merely because some witnesses have mentioned the name of a such person or that there is some material against Crl.