Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1301 OF 2013
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.5294 OF 2012)
GULAB CHAND ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
PRADEEP KR. DEHALWAL AND ANR. ...RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed
by the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior
in Criminal Revision No.704 of 2011, dated 23.09.2011. By the
impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the order
passed by the Trial Court on an application filed by the prosecution
under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the
JUDGMENT
Code' for short).
3. The Trial Court as well as the High Court has referred to the
facts in detail. Therefore, we will only advert to the facts of the
case briefly and they are as follows :- The incident occurred on
04.05.2007 at around 3.30 p.m. in the house of the Respondent No.1
-Pradeep Dehalwal, where the deceased-Nitesh succumbed to a bullet
injury. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged by the Respondent No. 1 before
the Police station at Ashok Nagar against Ritesh Pathak (A1) and
Narendra Singh Dhakad (A2) under Sections 304, 201, 34 of the Indian
Page 1
2
Penal Code (“the IPC” for short) and Section 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T.
Act.
4. After completion of the investigation, the investigating agency
had filed a charge-sheet against (A1) and (A2) for the offences
under Sections 302 read with 34 of the IPC.
5. After examining the main prosecution witnesses during the trial,
the prosecution had filed an application under Section 319 of the
Code, inter alia , requesting the Court to direct respondent No.1
herein to face the trial along with the other arraigned accused
persons for offences under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC.
6. The Trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence of
P.W.5- mother of the deceased and the evidence of P.W.6- father of
the deceased, has come to the conclusion that respondent no. 1 had
formed a common intention along with the other accused and in
furtherance of the common intention, played an important role in the
JUDGMENT
killing of the deceased, and accordingly, has allowed the
application filed by the prosecution. In the words of the Trial
Court :
“Both sides were heard on the present application
and original case and the statements of the
witnesses were perused. From the perusal of the
records it is found that before the Court
Manjulata Jaatav (PW-5) who is the mother of the
deceased, has stated in para 2, 4 of her
statement and witness (PW-6) Gulabchandra who is
the father of the deceased has stated in para 1,
4 and 5 of his statement and PW-7 Niran Nigam has
stated in para 3 and 7 of his statement clearly
about the threatening given by Pradeep Dahalwaar
to the deceased to kill him and committing the
Page 2
3
murder of Nitesh by shooting and his involvement
in the incident and even in forensic report the
place of incident is stated to be the room of
Pradeep Dahalwaar. In this way from the
statements of the above prosecution witnesses and
from the forensic report given by the senior
scientist the evidence in record to the place of
incident as the room of Pradeep Dahalwaar has
appeared. Looking at the above evidence it is
found proper to accuse Pradeep Dahalwaar along
with other accused persons in the case, to take
cognizance against him and conduct his trial.”
7. Being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Trial Court,
respondent no.1 herein, had filed a Criminal Revision Petition
before the High Court. The High Court in the impugned judgment
notices the conclusions reached by the Trial Court. However, on a
very strange reasoning holds that the Trial Court was not justified
in allowing the application filed by the prosecution to call upon
the respondent no.1 to face the trial for the death of the deceased.
In the words of the High Court :
“Looking to the statements of the witnesses, it is
gathered that just before the incident, deceased
Nitesh informed that accused and the petitioner were
threatening him to kill, but therefore the trial
Court, there was no strong circumstance appeared
against the petitioner to establish his involvement
in the commission of murder of Nitesh. Besides, it
there was no direct or indirect evidence to involve
him in the alleged crime. No doubt, the trial court
can take such a step to add such persons as accused
only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and
not on the basis of material available in the charge-
sheet or the case diary, but to invoke powers under
Section 319 of Cr.P.C., it is essential that need to
proceed against a person other than accused appearing
to be guilty of offence, should arise only on the
evidence recorded in the course of any enquiry or
trial. Where no such evidence is recorded nor the
Investigating Officer has collected any material
against such person during investigation, the person
shouldn't be summoned under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.,
the Court must arrive at the satisfaction that there
JUDGMENT
Page 3
4
exists a possibility that the accused so summoned is
in all likelihood would be convicted. So, the Court
has to use the power under Secion 319 of Cr.P.C.
Sparingly and primarily to advance the cause of
criminal justice but not as a handle at the hands of
the complainant to cause harassment to the person who
is not involved in the commission of crime.”
8. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant
and respondent no.1, we have carefully perused the evidence of the
mother of the deceased- P.W.5 and the father of the deceased-P.W.6.
We have also seen the order passed by the Trial Court as well as by
the High Court. The High Court, without properly examining the
evidence on record and without properly appreciating the judgment
passed by the Trial Court, ought not to have reversed the findings
reached by the Trial Court. In our considered view, the Trial Court
was justified in calling upon the respondent no.1 to face the trial
for the death of the deceased.
9. In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside the order
JUDGMENT
passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision No.704 of 2011 and
restore the order passed by the Trial Court.
10. Any observations made by us in the course of our order are only
for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. This should not be taken
as an expression of our opinion for involving of respondent no.1 for
the death of the deceased.
11. In view of the order passed by us, the interim order granted by
Page 4
5
this Court stands vacated.
12. The incident is of the year 2007 and, therefore, we request the
Trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the trial, provided both the
parties co-operate in completion of such trial.
..........................J.
(H.L. DATTU)
..........................J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAY)
..........................J.
(M.Y. EQBAL)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 29, 2013
JUDGMENT
Page 5