Allahabad High Court
Dr. Ashok Kumar Handa vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 April, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:58600 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6303 of 2023 Revisionist :- Dr. Ashok Kumar Handa Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ankit Agarval Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shyam Murari Upadhyay Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ankit Agarwal, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party 1 and Mr. Shyam Murari Upadhyay, the learned counsel representing opposite party 2.
2. Perused the record.
3. This criminal revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 27.09.2023, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act), Shamli in Sessions Trial No.124 of 2021 (State Vs. Suman), arising out of Case Crime No.1284 of 2018, under Section 306 IPC, police station Kotwali Shamli, district Shamli, whereby the court below has partly allowed the application under Section 319 CrPC filed by the prosecution and consequently, summoned the revisionist to face trial in aforementioned Sessions Trial.
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 16.11.2018, a delayed first information report dated 17.11.2018 was lodged by first informant, namely, Sitaram (father of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No.1284 of 2018, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, police station Kotwali Shamli, district Shamli. In the aforesaid FIR, five persons, namely, Suman, Ramesho, Arjun, Jaipal Singh and Dr. Safal Kumar have been nominated as named accused.
5. After aforementioned first information report was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII CrPC. After completing preliminary formalities i.e. visiting the place of occurrence, recovery of dead body, inquest of the body of deceased and post-mortem proceedings, Investigating Officer examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. On the basis of above and other material collected by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of only one of the named accused, namely, Suman is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC (charge-sheet) dated 09.61.2020, whereby aforementioned named accused has been charge-sheeted under Section 306 IPC.
6. Upon submission of aforementioned charge-sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by the concerned Magistrate. However, as offence complained of is triable by the Court of Sessions exclusively, the concerned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. As a result, Sessions Trial No.124 of 2021 (State Vs. Suman), arising out of Case Crime No.1284 of 2018, under Section 306 IPC, police station Kotwali Shamli, district Shamli came to be registered in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act), Shamli.
7. The concerned Sessions Judge framed charges against the charge-sheeted accused, who denied the same and pleaded innocence. Consequently, the trial procedure commenced.
8. The prosecution in discharge of it's burden to bring home the charges so framed against charge-sheeted accused adduced the following witnesses upto this stage : PW-1 Sitaram (first informant); PW-2 Anand Kumar; PW-3 Rajeev Kumar; PW-4 Dr. Anupam Saxena; PW-5 Ratan Singh; PW-6 Rajbeer and PW-7 Constable 51 Arun Kumar.
9. After the statement-in-chief/examination-in-chief of aforesaid prosecution witnesses were recorded, the prosecution filed an application dated 10.11.2022 under Section 319 CrPC praying therein that since complicity of Ramesho, Arjun, Jaipal Singh, Dr. Safal Kumar and Dr. Ashok Kumar Handa is also established in the crime in question as per the statements of aforesaid witnesses, therefore, they be also summoned to face trial in aforementioned Sessions trial.
10. It appears that no objection to the aforesaid application under Section 319 CrPC was filed on behalf of charge-sheeted accused. Therefore, Court below evaluated the allegations made in the application under Section 319 CrPC in the light of the statements of prosecution witnesses, whose statements were recorded upto this stage. On the basis of above, the Court below came to the conclusion that complicity of present revisionist alone has emerged in the crime in question. It, accordingly, partly allowed the application under Section 319 CrPC and summoned the present revisionist to face trial in aforementioned Sessions Trial, vide order dated 27.09.2023.
11. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by Court below, revisionist has now approached this Court by means of present criminal revision.
12. Mr. Ankit Agarwal, the learned counsel for revisionist contends that the order impugned in present criminal revision is not only illegal but also arbitrary. Consequently, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court. Admittedly, the death of the deceased was a suicidal death and therefore the Court has to examine the nature of death of the deceased in the light of the provisions contained in Section 306 IPC. As per the material that has emerged on record of aforementioned Sessions Trial, it cannot be conclusively concluded that revisionist has either abetted, instigated or conspired in the commission of crime in question. Referring to the statements of seven prosecution witnesses examined upto this stage, learned counsel for revisionist vehemently urged before this Court that neither revisionist is named in the FIR nor the complicity of revisionist has emerged in the crime in question as per the statements of witnesses examined up to this stage, therefore, there is no strong and cogent evidence against the revisionist, so as to warrant his summoning to face trial in aforementioned Sessions Trial.
13. Learned counsel for revisionist has then invited the attention of Court to the five Judges' Constitution Bench judgement of Apex Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others (2014) 3 SCC 92 and with reference to above he submits that entire procedure with regard to summoning of a prospective accused has now been crystalized by the Apex Court in aforementioned judgement. Reliance is placed upon paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6, 6.5, 7, 11, 55, 56, 57, 85, 92, 105, 106, 116, 117.1 to 117.6 of the aforesaid report. With reference to above, the learned counsel for revisionist contends that there was no such material before the court below on the basis of which the Court below could have recorded it's satisfaction regarding complicity of revisionist in the crime in question. He further contends that a prospective accused can be summoned only upon satisfaction of the court concerned, which satisfaction should be similar to the degree of satisfaction as detailed in paragraph 106 of the aforesaid report. However, there was no such material before Court below to record the said satisfaction against the revisionist, therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained.
14. Reference was also made to the two Judges' Bench's judgment of the Apex Court in Brijendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706. With reference to above, the learned counsel for revisionist submits that a prospective accused cannot be summoned simply on the basis of his complicity in the crime in question but only when something more than mere complicity of prospective accused has emerged against the prospective accused. The Court is under a legal obligation to examine (a) the evidence that has emerged during the course of investigation; (b) as to whether the witness in his deposition before the Court has stated something new which is different from his previous statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC and (c) whether on the basis of said material, something more than mere complicity of a prospective accused that has emerged in the crime in question. According to the learned counsel for revisionist, only when the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, a prospective accused can be summoned by Court below to face trial. On the above premise, the learned counsel for revisionist submits that when the aforesaid test is applied to the facts of present case, the conditions precedent for summoning a prospective accused to face trial are not satisfied and therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained.
15. Learned counsel for revisionist has lastly referred to the judgement of Apex Court in S. Mohammed Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak and others (2017) 16 SCC, 226, wherein the Court has observed that in order to summon a prospective accused on an application under Section 319 CrPC, the court must exercise it's jurisdiction diligently and not in a casual and cavalier fashion. The power under Section 319 CrPC is an extra ordinary power and should, therefore, be exercised sparingly. Therefore, what is required to summon a prospective accused is that only when strong and cogent evidence has emerged against a prospective accused can he be summoned and not his mere complicity in the crime in question. Taking aid from the above proposition laid down by the Apex Court, the learned counsel for revisionist contends that up to this stage what has emerged against revisionist is his mere complicity in the crime in question and not such strong and cogent evidence so as to establish something more than the complicity of revisionist in the crime in question. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for revisionist concludes that the order impugned cannot be sustained and is, therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court. He further contends that even taking into consideration the entire evidence that emerged upto this stage, no offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC can be said to have made out against revisionist.
16. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing opposite party 2 have vehemently opposed this criminal revision. According to them, the order impugned is perfectly just and legal and therefore, not liable to be interfered with. Court below has exercised it's jurisdiction diligently taking into consideration the material on record and not in a "casual and cavalier" fashion. They further submit that upto this stage, seven prosecution witnesses of fact have deposed before the Court below. Much emphasis was laid to the statement of PW-5-Ratan Singh, wherein this witness, who is an independent witness, has assigned effective role to the present revisionist in the crime in question. The same is occurring at page 223 of the paper book, which is also reproduced herein-under :-
"घटना दिनांक 16-11-2018 की है। मैं और राजबीर व रामकुमार प्रमेन्द्र की पत्नी पारूल को देखने के लिए गली नंबर 10 दयानन्द नगर में बबली दाई के मकान पर गये थे। मकान पर गये तो गली में ही शोर सराबा सुनकर समय लगभग रात के ग्यारह बज रहे थे। मनोज के घर गये जो हमारे पड़ोस के गांव का है। उपर खिड़की खुली हुई थी, जीने से चढ़कर देखा तो अर्जुन व जयपाल ने मनोज के पैर दबा रखे थे जान से मारने के नियत से मनोज की पत्नी सुमन व सास रमेषों दोनों ने मनोज के हाथ पकड़ रखे थे और लिटा रखा था। और एक डा0 अषोक हाडा पुत्र रमेषचन्द निवासी शास्त्री नगर जिला मेरठ ने मनोज के मुॅंह में डन्डा घुसा रखा था"
17. Similar is the statement of PW-6 Rajbeer, which is at page 228 of the paper book.
18. With reference to above, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing opposite party 2 submit that in the light of above, it cannot be said that it is the mere complicity of the revisionist, which has emerged in the crime in question but strong and cogent evidence has also emerged showing effective and active participation of the revisionist in the crime in question. They, therefore, contend that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh (Supra), Brijendra Singh and Others (Supra) and S. Mohammed Ispahani (Supra) is fully satisfied in the present case. The Court below has thus neither committed a jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned nor has it exercised it's jurisdiction with material irregularity, so as to warrant interference by this Court. They, therefore, submit that no good ground has been made out for interference by this Court in present criminal revision. As such, the same is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
19. Having heard the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party 1, Mr. Shyam Murari Upadhyay, the learned counsel representing opposite party 2 and upon perusal of record this Court finds that the issue which arises for determination in present revision is: What are the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C. As a logical corollary to above, Court will also have to consider;- whether the order impugned is within the established parameters or not?
20. Parameters regarding exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C. have been considered time and again by Supreme Court. The chronology of same is as under:
(i) Dharam Pal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2014) 3 SCC 306 (Constitution Bench)
(ii) Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Constitution Bench)
(iii) Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 568
(iv) Jogendra yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2015) 9 SCC 244
(v) Brijendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) (7) SCC 706
(vi) S Mohammed Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 226
(vii) Deepu @ Deepak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) 2 SCC 393
(viii) Dev Wati and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2019) 4 SCC 329
(ix) Periyasamai and Others Vs. S.Nallasamy, (2019) 4 SCC 342
(x) Sunil Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2019) 4 SCC 556
(xi) Rajesh and Others Vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368
(xii) Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2019) 6 SCC 638
(xiii) Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2019) 7 SCC 806
(xiv) Mani Pushpak Joshi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, (2019) 9 SCC 805
(xv) Sugreev Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2019) SCC Online Sc 390 (xvi) Labhuji Amratji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 12 SCC 644 (xvii) Sartaj Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2021) 5 SCC 337 (xviii) Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 632 (xix) Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Vs. The State of U.P. and another, 2021 SCC Online (SC) 741 (XX) Sagar VS. State of U.P. and Another, 2022 SCC Online Sc 289 (XXI) Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab (2023) 1 Scc 289 (Constitution Bench) (XXII) Juhru and Others Vs. Karim and Another (2023) 5 SCC 406 (XXIII) Jitendra Nath Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 7 SCC 344 (XXIV) Vikas Rathi Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 SCC Online SC 211 (XXV) Yashodhan Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2023) 9 SCC 108 (XXVI) N. Manogar and Another Vs. Inspector of Police and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 174
21. With the aid of above, the Court now proceeds to examine the veracity of impugned order dated 27.09.2023 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act), Shamli in Sessions Trial No.124 of 2021 (State Vs. Suman), arising out of Case Crime No.1284 of 2018, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Shamli, District-Shamli, whereby revisionist has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial in above-mentioned sessions trial.
22. Before proceeding to do so, it must be noticed that following issues stand settled as per the judgements of Supreme Court mentioned herein above and therefore, the same are not required to be dealt with by this Court.
23. A non-charge sheeted accused can be summoned by the Court of Sessions after the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and for that purpose need not wait for the evidence of the witnesses to be recorded so that non-charge sheeted accused could be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., vide Five Judges Bench's Judgment in Dharam Pal (Supra).
24. Ambit and scope of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. now stand crystallized by Supreme Court in paragraph-34 of the judgement in Manjeet Singh (supra).
25. Summoning of a non charge-sheeted accused in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be done in a "casual and cavalier manner". Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is "an extraordinary discretionary power which should be exercised sparingly". Vide paragraphs- 34 and 36 of the judgement in S. Mohammed Ispahani (supra) and paragraph- 105 of the Constitution Bench judgement in Hardeep Singh (supra).
26. The nature of satisfaction required for summoning a non charge-sheeted accused to face trial, has been summarized in paragraph-106 of the Constitution Bench judgement in Hardeep Singh (supra), wherein Constitution Bench has held that a prospective accused can be summoned on the basis of Statement-in-Chief of a solitary prosecution witness of fact. The only requirement is that such statement discloses more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction.
27. A prospective accused cannot be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial merely on the basis of his complicity in the crime in question but only when strong and cogent evidence has emerged against him vide S. Mohammed Ispahani (supra).
28. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extra ordinary power which should be exercised sparingly. Courts should exercise their jurisdiction not in a "casual and cavalier" fashion but diligently vide S. Mohammed Ispahani (Supra).
29. The evidence of an injured eye witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. Vide paragraph 37 of judgement in Manjeet Singh (Supra).
30. The trial Court is competent to exercise it's power under section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of statements recorded before it in examination-in-chief. However, in a case, where plethora of evidence is collected by investigating Officer during course of investigation, which suggests otherwise, the trial Court is at least duty bound to look into the same, while forming prima facie opinion and to see as to whether much stronger evidence than mere possibility of their complicity has come on record. 65. The Court, thus, has to find out as to whether something new has been stated in the deposition of witnesses than what was stated in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C (vide paragraph 15 of judgement in Brijendra Singhs's Case (Supra))?
31. An accused who has been summoned by the Court in exercise of power under section 319 Cr.P.C., cannot claim discharge vide S. Mohammaed Ispahani (Supra) and Vikas Rathi (Supra).
32. In Sukhpal Singh Khaira (Supra), a subsequent Bench of Supreme Court opined that the law laid down by Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh's (Supra) case requires re-consideration as certain questions remain unanswered in the Constitution Bench Judgement and further the parameter regarding the exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C need to be re-laid down.
33. In Rajesh and Others (Supra), it has been held that failure on the part of first informant in not filing a protest petition against the charge-sheet, cannot be treated as an impediment or bar in exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C.
34. The reference made by a Two Judges Bench judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2019) 6 SCC 638, was answered by another Five Judges Bench judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289. The Court held that "The power under Section 319CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable.". Thereafter, the Court also laid down the guidelines to be followed while exercising jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
35. Even if, no protest protest petition was filed by the first informant against the police report submitted in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. i.e. charge sheet for summoning the non charge sheeted accused yet a prospective accused can be summoned by Court on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and there will be no estoppel against the same vide Rajesh and Others (Supra).
36. A prospective accused is not required to be heard before an order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is passed against him vide Yashodhan Singh and Others (Supra).
37. Having noted the settled position, the Court is now required to consider whether on the basis of deposition of PW-1, Ganesh Kumar Saini (first informant), PW-2, Prem Veer Singh and PW-3, Dr. Amit Bhatnagar, the revisionist could have been summoned by court below. As an ancillary issue, Court will also have to consider as to whether court below has exercised it's jurisdiction "diligently" or as termed by Apex Court in a "casual and cavalier manner."?
38. In the case in hand, Court below has summoned the revisionist after the statement of 7 prosecution witnesses was recorded, before Court below itself. Their statements are on record as Annexure-21 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. Perusal of the same goes to show that not only the statement-in-chief but also the examination-in-chief of aforesaid witnesses have been recorded. As such, the statements of the witnesses relied upon by Court below falls within the realm of legal evidence. In view of the law laid down by the Five Judges Bench's judgment in Hardeep Singh (Supra), a prospective accused can be summoned even on the basis of statement-in-chief of one prosecution witness.
39. The next issue to be examined by this Court is whether on the basis of material on record, the satisfaction recorded by Court below is in confirmity with the observations made by the Five Judges Bench in the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra) in paragraph 106 of the report?
40. It would be apt to reproduce paragraph 106 of the aforesaid judgment, wherein, Court has observed about the nature of satisfaction which is required to summon a prospective accused in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The same reads as under:-
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if 'it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence' is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are not 'for which such person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.
41. When the satisfaction recorded by Court below is examined in the light of aforesaid observations made by the Five Judges Bench and the depositions of PW-5 Ratan Singh and PW6 Rajbeer, it cannot be said that the satisfaction so recorded by Court below is illegal or not in confirmity with the degree of satisfaction required as per the observations made in paragraph 106 of the Five Judges Bench's judgment of Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh (Supra).
42. The law with regard to the summoning of a prospective accused even after the judgment of the Five Judges Bench's judgment in Hardeep Singh (Supra) has been interpreted in favour of a prospective accused and Courts have narrowed down the scope of interference by the Trial Judge in such matters. On a conjoint reading of the ratio laid down in the case of Brijendra Singh (Supra) and S. Mohammad Spahani (Supra) apart from the ratio laid down in the Five Judges Bench's judgment in Hardeep Singh (Supra), the Courts are now also required to return a finding on the following aspects of the matter;- (A) a prospective accused can be summoned on the basis of the statement-in-chief of one prosecution witness, (B) irrespective of above, the Court must draw a parallel in between the deposition of the prosecution witness so examined and his previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., (C) the Court must endeavour to find out whether something new has emerged in the deposition of the prosecution witness so examined from what was stated by him in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.? (D) the Court also consider the plethora of evidence that was collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as it is a relevant material for deciding the issue as to whether something more than mere complicity of a prospective accused has emerged in the crime in question? (E) the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extra ordinary power and should be exercised sparingly, (F) power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extra ordinary power and should be exercised sparingly. Court should exercise it's jurisdiction diligently and not in "casual and cavalier" fashion, (G) a prospective accused cannot be summoned simply on the basis of his complicity in the crime in question but only when some strong and cogent evidence has emerged against him.
43. When the order impugned is examined in the light of aforementioned propositions, they all are fully satisfied against revisionist inasmuch as, it is not only the complicity of the revisionist, which has emerged in the crime in question but also strong and cogent evidence has also emerged against him regarding his actual and active participation in the crime in question as per the depositions of PW-5 and PW-6 before Court below.
44. In view of above, the Court below while passing the order impugned has neither committed a jurisdictional error nor has it exercised it's jurisdiction with material irregularity warranting interference by this Court.
45. Though the trial of the charge sheeted accused is under Section 306 IPC and an offence under Section 306 IPC has to be judged in the light of the provisions contained in Section 107 IPC. It was in the light of above that it was argued by the learned counsel for revisionist that even as per the statement of the prosecution witnesses examined up to this stage, no offence under Section 306 IPC can be said to have been committed by the prospective accused i.e. revisionist as there is nothing to show abetment, instigation or conspiracy against revisionist. The aforesaid aspect of the matter need not detain this Court for long as this Court is not unmindful of the provisions contained in Section 216 CrPC, which enables the Court to alter the charge at any stage of the proceedings in the light of the evidence that may emerge during the course of trial. Therefore, even if, the trial of the charge sheeted accused is under Section 306 IPC i.e. suicidal death and the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 shows that the deceased was murdered but that cannot be a ground to conclude that the evidence which has emerged on record is insufficient to summon the accused-revisionist to face trial in aforementioned case, which is under Section 306 IPC and the accused-revisionist has not been summoned under Section 302 IPC.
46. In view of the discussion made above, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.
47. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.4.2024.
Rks.