Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dharm Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 20 December, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
JUDGMENT
(1) BRIJ MOHAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJ.
(S.B. Cr.Revision Petition No. 782 of 2011)
(2) DHARAM SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
(S.B. Cr.Revision Petition No. 700 of 2011)
Under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 2.6.2011 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast track) No.1 Jaipur in Sessions case No. 5 of 2009 whereby the trial court allowed the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the petitioners Brij Mohan Meena, Smt. Ramdulari, Baney Singh and Rashmi ( revision petition No. 782 of 2011) whereas the order has been challenged by Dharam Singh father of the deceased for rejecting the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. against the non-petitioners Prem Singh, Roop Singh, Brij Ballabh, and Jagmohan (revision petition No. 700 of 2011).
Date of Order : December 20 , 2011
PRESENT
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. Madhav Mitra for the petitioners Brij Mohan Meena, Smt. Ramdulari, Baney Singh and Rashmi in Revision Petition No. 782 of 2011
Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinswar for petitioner Dharam Singh in Revision Petition No. 700 of 2011
Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for the State.
---
REPORTABLE BY THE COURT :
These two revision petitions have been filed against the order dated order dated 2.6.2011 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast track) No.1 Jaipur in Sessions case No. 5 of 2009 whereby the trial court allowed the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the petitioners Brij Mohan Meena, Smt. Ramdulari, Baney Singh and Rashmi ( revision petition No. 782 of 2011) whereas the order has been challenged by Dharam Singh father of deceased Renu for rejecting the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. against the non-petitioners Prem Singh, Roop Singh, Brij Ballabh, and Jagmohan (revision petition No. 700 of 2011), hence they are being disposed by this common order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the son of the petitioner No.1 Virendra Meena got married to one Renu Meena daughter of Dharam Singh at Arya Samaj, Rajapark, Jaipur as marriage of choice which was opposed by the family of Renu Meena, resultant to which an FIR No. 444/2004 Police Station Mantown Sawai Madhopur was registered for abduction. Meanwhile parents of Renu Meena who had been legally wedded wife of Virendra Meena forcibly abducted by the aid of Police personnel belonging to Sanganer Police Station, resultant to which habeas corpus petition was submitted before this Court wherein gril was brought by the parents who on oath stated that she was willfully resided with her husband and wants to do so in future. This court after granting police protection sent Renu Meena with Virendra Meena. The couple resided initially at C-7 PNB flats Malviya Nagar, Jaipur thereafter shifted to the rented place Plot No. 70 CBI Colony Arvind Nagar, Jaipur. It was alleged in the petition that on 13.9.2008 Renu Meena died a natural death since she was suffering from low B.P. and other ailments but the family members of Renu Meena who were keeping enmity since their marriage lodged an FIR which was investigated under section 304 B IPC. It has been alleged in the petition that under the influence of complainant the police filed challan against Virendra Meena and subsequently charge was leveled and trial is undergoing. The other family members of Virendra Meena those who are petitioners herein in revision petition No. 782 of 2011 the investigation was kept pending under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. The petitioners in criminal revision petition No. 782 of 2011 being afraid of Renu Meena's father who enjoys high position due to he being Senior District Judge, requested higher police officials to get the investigation conducted by CID CB in written their grievance was redressed and investigation was conducted by CID CB against the petitioners, whose investigation was pending under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. After comprehensive investigation, the police submitted negative final report and closed the file. It is alleged in the petition that after submission of final report against the petitioners, in their statements the prosecution witnesses Pradeep (PW.1), Dharam Singh Meena (PW.10), Smt. Kiran, (PW.11) and Govind (PW.12), they categorically tried to incorporate the petitioners even when no iota of evidence was available on the record to connect the petitioners with the present crime. Application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on 14.12.2010 reiterating therein that the petitioners were involved in the crime and used to harass deceased Renu Meena. Reply to the application was filed by Virendra Meena since he was facing trial and incorporation of other accused would not only shatter his defence but would also delay the trial unwarrantably. It was stated in the reply that the application was without any substance and no iota of evidence by way of imagination whatsoever can connect the petitioners with the present crime. The trial court decided the application and cognizance was taken against the petitioners in revision petition No. 782 of 2011 and rejected the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. against the non-petitioners 1 to 5 in the revision petition No.; 700 of 2011. These two revision petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 2.6.2011 of the trial court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in revision petition No. 782 of 2011 has argued that the trial court even after specific challenge to the authentication of the application filed under section 319 Cr.P.C. opted to keep mum on the issue and not written a single word as to why such application has been entertained. In the application it has been written complainant and father of the deceased Dharam Singh Meena has filed application under section 319 Cr.P.C. through Public Prosecutor. It is argued that neither Dharam Singh is complainant nor such application can be filed through the Public Prosecutor. The procedure adopted is totally foreign to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and it was prayed that this court may interfere in the matter for quashing the order of the trial court. It has been further argued that in the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. there has not been a mention of single instance which would constitute the offence under section 304 B IPC. In the statements before the court the parents of deceased Renu also does not disclose any specific or direct evidence so as to connect the present petitioners with the present crime. The CID CB conducted investigation and submitted their negative report along with the statements and documents which would go to show that there is no culpability available to connect the petitioners even remotest with the present crime. The trial court has placed reliance upon the statements of PW.1, PW.10, PW.11 and PW.12 who are closed relatives of deceased Renu whereas their statements in totality have not been considered. The witnesses failed to mention any specific instance or to develop the case so as to fall in the primary requirement of offence under section 304 B IPC. The learned counsel has argued that soon before harassment is totally missing in the statements or in the material placed before the trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Sarabjit Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another ( 2009 ) 16 SCC 46, Brindaban Das and others vs. State of West Ben gal ( 2009 ) 3 SCC 329, Mohd. Shafi vs. Mohad. Rafiq and another (2007 Cr.L.J. 3198 (1) and Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others ( 2007) 12 SCC. Mr. Madhav Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner also placed for my perusal certain documents related to the present matter.
4. Mr. Biri Singh, Sr. Advocate appearing for Mr. Dharam Singh, petitioner in Revision Petition No. 700 of 2011 has argued that the trial court has failed to apply the mind judiciously to the material available on record. The trial court has failed to appreciate the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. It was argued that the trial court has to see only whether there is a prima facie case made out against the accused or not. The trial court has to see only the evidence against the accused persons and cannot go into the merits and demerits of the case and about the probability of the defence at this stage. The trial court has also erred in not taking into consideration the statements of the petitioner Dharam Singh, his wife Smt. Kiran Devi, Brijlal Meena and Govind Meena who have specifically stated that the in-laws of Smt. Renu including the present non-petitioners who are near relatives of Virendra and Family, have actively helped in harassing, humiliating and torturoing Smt. Renu for dowery and in the last murdered her. There is cogent and reliable evidence against the accused non- petitioners. Entire evidence and the material available on record it is clear that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and has also failed to apply its mind to the well settled principles laid down by the Apex Court as well as by this Court. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that at the stage of section 319 Cr.P.C. the court has to look into thbe entire evidence recorded by the investigating agency as well as the evidence produced before the court for judging the truthfulness of the evidence of prosecution witnesses but in the instant case the trial court has ignored this principle and failed to appreciate the evidence. He has placed reliance on Ram Pal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2010 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC 765) and Jafar Mohd. Shah vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2007 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 790).
5. On the other hand, Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has argued that the trial court has rightly passed the order under section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning accused petitioners Brij Mohan Meena, Smt. Ramdulari, Baney Singh and Rashmi and rejecting the application in respect of non-petitioners Prem Singh, Roop Singh, Brij Ballabh and Jagmohan to be made accused at the stage of section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the evidence available on record and the material available on record. The trial court has discussed in details while passing the order on the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. The trial court considered the whole material available on record and the order does not suffer from any glaring mistake so as to interfere in the revisional powers of this court under section 397 Cr.P.C.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material made available to me.
7. First of all, I may consider the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. Section 319 of the Code reads 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 reheard;
(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.
8. The extent of the power of a Sessions Judge to summon persons other than the accused to stand trial in a pending case came up for consideration before the Apex Court in MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi (1983) 1 SCC 1. Therein, the Apex Court while holding that the provision confers a discretionary jurisdiction on the court added this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken .
9. In Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh, (2002) 5 SCC 738 the Apex Court held: (SCC p. 743, para 9)
9. The intention of the provision here is that where in the course of any enquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears to the court from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence, the court may proceed against him for the offence which he appears to have committed. At that stage, the court would consider that such a person could be tried together with the accused who is already before the court facing the trial. The safeguard provided in respect of such person is that, the proceedings right from the beginning have mandatorily to be commenced afresh and the witnesses reheard. In short, there has to be a de novo trial against him. The provision of de novo trial is mandatory. It vitally affects the rights of a person so brought before the court. It would not be sufficient to only tender the witnesses for the cross-examination of such a person. They have to be examined afresh. Fresh examination-in-chief and not only their presentation for the purpose of the cross-examination of the newly added accused is the mandate of Section 319(4). The words could be tried together with the accused in Section 319(1), appear to be only directory. Could be cannot under these circumstances be held to be must be. The provision cannot be interpreted to mean that since the trial in respect of a person who was before the court has concluded with the result that the newly added person cannot be tried together with the accused who was before the court when order under Section 319(1) was passed, the order would become ineffective and inoperative, nullifying the opinion earlier formed by the court on the basis of the evidence before it that the newly added person appears to have committed the offence resulting in an order for his being brought before the court.
It was furthermore held: (SCC p. 744, para 14)
14. A Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of an offence in the manner provided under Section 190 of the Code. Section 209 enjoins upon a Magistrate to commit the case to the Court of Session when it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. Section 193 provides for the power of the Court of Session to take cognizance of any offence. It uses the expression cognizance of any offence and not that of offender. These three provisions read with Section 319 make it clear that the words could be tried together with the accused in Section 319 are only for the purpose of finding out whether such a person could be put on trial for the offence.
10. In Rakesh v. State of Haryana (2001) 6 SCC 248 the Apex Court held: (SCC p. 253, para 13)
13. Hence, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the term evidence as used in Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code would mean evidence which is tested by cross-examination. The question of testing the evidence by cross-examination would arise only after addition of the accused. There is no question of cross-examining the witness prior to adding such person as accused. The section does not contemplate an additional stage of first summoning the person and giving him an opportunity of cross-examining the witness who has deposed against him and thereafter deciding whether such person is to be added as accused or not. The word evidence occurring in sub-section (1) is used in a comprehensive and broad sense which would also include the material collected by the investigating officer and the material or evidence which comes before the court and from which the court can prima facie conclude that the person not arraigned before it is involved in the commission of the crime.
11. In Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1998) 7 SCC 149, the Apex Court opined: (SCC p. 156, paras 20-23)
20. Thus, once the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the offence pursuant to the committal order, the only other stage when the court is empowered to add any other person to the array of the accused is after reaching evidence collection when powers under Section 319 of the Code can be invoked. We are unable to find any other power for the Sessions Court to permit addition of new person or persons to the array of the accused. Of course it is not necessary for the court to wait until the entire evidence is collected for exercising the said powers.
21. But then one more question may survive. In a situation where the Sessions Judge notices from the materials produced but before any evidence is taken, that any other person should also have necessarily been made an accused (without which the framing of the charge would be defective or that it might lead to a miscarriage of justice), is the Sessions Court completely powerless to deal with such a contingency? One such situation is cited by the learned Judges through an illustration narrated in Kishun Singh case (1993) 2 SCC 16 as follows: (SCC pp. 29-30, para 15)
15. where two persons A and B attack and kill X and it is found from the material placed before the Judge that the fatal blow was given by A whereas the blow inflicted by B had fallen on a non-vital part of the body of X. If A is not challaned by the police, the Judge may find it difficult to charge B for the murder of X with the aid of Section 34 IPC. If he cannot summon A, how does he frame the charge against B?
22. Another instance can be this. All the materials produced by the investigating agency would clearly show the positive involvement of a person who was not shown in the array of the accused due to some inadvertence or omission. Should the court wait until evidence is collected to get that person arraigned in the case?
23. Though such situations may arise only in extremely rare cases, the Sessions Court is not altogether powerless to deal with such situations to prevent a miscarriage of justice. It is then open to the Sessions Court to send a report to the High Court detailing the situation so that the High Court can in its inherent powers or revisional powers direct the committing Magistrate to rectify the committal order by issuing process to such left-out accused. But we hasten to add that the said procedure need be resorted to only for rectifying or correcting such grave mistakes.
12. The Apex Court in Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh (2006) 10 SCC 192 observed: (SCC p. 195, para 6)
6. The court, while examining an application under Section 319 of the Code, has also to bear in mind that there is no compelling duty on the court to proceed against other persons. In a nutshell, for exercise of discretion under Section 319 of the Code all relevant factors, including those noticed above, have to be kept in view and an order is not required to be made mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence had come on record implicating the person sought to be added as an accused.
It was furthermore observed*: (SCC pp. 195-96, para 9)
9. 19. In these circumstances, therefore, if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence which satisfies the court that the other accused or those who have not been arrayed as accused against whom proceedings have been quashed have also committed the offence the court can take cognizance against them and try them along with the other accused. But, we would hasten to add that this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken.
13. In Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq (2007) 14 SCC 544 the Apex Court held: (SCC pp. 546-47, paras 7 & 11)
7. Before, thus, a trial court seeks to take recourse to the said provision, the requisite ingredients therefor must be fulfilled. Commission of an offence by a person not facing trial, must, therefore, appear to the court concerned. It cannot be ipse dixit on the part of the court. Discretion in this behalf must be judicially exercised. It is incumbent that the court must arrive at its satisfaction in this behalf.
* * *
11. The trial Judge, as noticed by us, in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required to arrive at his satisfaction. If he thought that the matter should receive his due consideration only after the cross-examination of the witnesses is over, no exception thereto could be taken far less at the instance of a witness and when the State was not aggrieved by the same.
14. The decision of the Apex Court in Mohd. Shafi (2007) 14 SCC 544 was further explained by the Apex Court in Lal Suraj v. State of Jharkhand (2009 ) 2 SCC 696 and it was held as under : (SCC p. 701, para 16)
16. The principle of strong suspicion may be a criterion at the stage of framing of charge as all the materials brought during investigation were required to be taken into consideration, but, for the purpose of summoning a person, who did not figure as accused, a different legal principle is required to be applied. A court framing a charge would have before it all the materials on record which were required to be proved by the prosecution. In a case where, however, the court exercises its jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code, the power has to be exercised on the basis of the fresh evidence brought before the court. There lies a fine but clear distinction.
15. In Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 16 SCC 46, the Apex Court held as under :
15. Our attention, however, has been drawn to a two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 16 SCC 785 wherein doubting the correctness of Mohd. Shafi (2008) 14 SCC 544 two questions have been referred to a larger Bench, which are as under:
(1) When the power under sub-section (1) of Section 319 of the Code of addition of accused can be exercised by a court? Whether application under Section 319 is not maintainable unless the cross-examination of the witness is complete?
(2) What is the test and what are the guidelines of exercising power under sub-section (1) of Section 319 of the Code? Whether such power can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned in all likelihood would be convicted?
16. Mr Mehta would also draw our attention to Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab (2008) 9 SCC 140. Whereas Hardeep Singh (2009) 16 SCC 785 is not a judgment in that sense of the term, in Bholu Ram (2008) 9 SCC 140 the principal question which arose for consideration of this Court was as to whether an order passed under Section 319 of the Code can be recalled which was answered in the negative.
17. For the purpose of this case, it is not necessary to proceed on the basis that the decision in Mohd. Shafi (2007) 14 SCC 544 should be applied on all fours. We have noticed hereinbefore that Mohd. Shai (2007) 14 SCC 544 has been explained in Lal Suraj (2009) 2 SCC 696 holding that a power under Section 319 of the Code can be exercised only on the basis of fresh evidence brought before it and not on the basis of the materials which had been collected during investigation particularly when a final form was submitted and the same had been accepted by the Magistrate concerned.
18. There is no gainsaying that the power under Section 319 of the Code is an extraordinary power which in terms of the decision of this Court in MCD (1983) 1 SCC 1 is required to be exercised sparingly and if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against whom action has not been taken. The provision of Section 319 of the Code, on a plain reading, provides that such an extraordinary case has been made out must appear to the court. Has the criterion laid down by this Court in MCD (1983) 1 SCC 1 been satisfied is the question?
19. Indisputably, before an additional accused can be summoned for standing trial, the nature of the evidence should be such which would make out grounds for exercise of extraordinary power. The materials brought before the court must also be such which would satisfy the court that it is one of those cases where its jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly.
20. We may notice that in Y. Saraba Reddy v. Puthur Rami Reddy (2007) 4 SCC 773 this Court opined**: (SCC p. 776, para 8)
11. Undisputedly, it is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking action against a person against whom action had not been taken earlier. The word evidence in Section 319 contemplates the evidence of witnesses given in court.
21. An order under Section 319 of the Code, therefore, should not be passed only because the first informant or one of the witnesses seeks to implicate other person(s). Sufficient and cogent reasons are required to be assigned by the court so as to satisfy the ingredients of the provisions. Mere ipse dixit would not serve the purpose. Such an evidence must be convincing one at least for the purpose of exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. For the aforementioned purpose, the courts are required to apply stringent tests; one of the tests being whether evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned.
16. The Apex Court in Brindaban Das v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 3 SCC 329, held as under :
25. The common thread in most matters where the use of discretion is in issue is that in the exercise of such discretion each case has to be considered on its own set of facts and circumstances. In matters relating to invocation of powers under Section 319, the court is not merely required to take note of the fact that the name of a person who has not been named as an accused in the FIR 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 CrPC entails a de novo trial and a large number of witnesses may have been examined and their re-examination could prejudice the prosecution and delay the trial, the trial court has to exercise such discretion with great care and perspicacity.
26. Although a somewhat discordant note was struck in Rajendra Singh case (2007) 7 SCC 378 the views expressed in the majority of decisions of this Court on the point subscribe to the view that the power under Section 319 CrPC is to be invoked, not as a matter of course, but in circumstances where the invocation of such power is imperative to meet the ends of justice.
27. The fulcrum on which the invocation of Section 319 CrPC rests is whether the summoning of persons other than the named accused would make such a difference to the prosecution as would enable it not only to prove its case but to also secure the conviction of the persons summoned.
28. In the instant case, on the quality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution as far as the appellants are concerned, it is difficult to hold with any amount of certainty that the same would in all probability secure a conviction against the appellants. The evidence which seeks to connect the appellants with the commission of the offence is hearsay in nature.
29. Section 319 CrPC contemplates a situation where the evidence adduced by the prosecution not only implicates a person other than the named accused but is sufficient for the purpose of convicting the person to whom summons is issued. The law in this regard was explained in Ram Kishan Rohtagi case (1983) 1 SCC 1 and as pointed out by Mr Ghosh, consistently followed thereafter, except for the note of discord struck in Rajendra Singh case (2007) 7 SCC 378. It is only logical that there must be substantive evidence against a person in order to summon him for trial, although, he is not named in the charge-sheet or he has been discharged from the case, which would warrant his prosecution thereafter with a good chance of his conviction.
17. Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others (2007) 12 SCC cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners related to quashing of criminal proceedings.
18. In Ram Pal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2010 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 765, summoning of additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C - the High Court set aside the order and directed the trial court to issue summon against the appellants- Satisfaction of Court from the evidence that a person against whom charge has not been framed but his complicity is clear is pre-requirement for invoking powers- Appellants were named in FIR but not charge sheeted- PW-1 in his evidence has named the appellanbts who were involved in causing murder of 'B'- Held, Order of Summoning the appellants is upheld.
19. In Jaffar Mohd. Shah vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2007(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 790, it was held that at the time of deciding application under section 319 Cr.P.C., defence of accused need not be taken into consideration by Court- Only material on record is required to be seen and there is no question of hearing the person sought to be arraigned at the stage- Court is not expected to hear arguments of parties, at the stage, giving opportunity fo advancing defence.
20. I have also gone through the order dated 2.6.2011 passed by the trial court taking cognizance against the accused petitioners Brij Mohan Meena, Smt. Ramdulari, Baney Singh and Rashmi and rejecting the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. in respect of non- petitioners Prem Singh, Roop Singh, Brij Ballabh and Jagmohan on the basis of the princiles enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases mentioned above.
In the order dated 2.6.2011 the trial court observed as under :
?? ?????? ???????? ??? ???????? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???????, ??? ??????? ????????? , ???? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????, ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???-?????? ? ??????? ???? ???? ??, ????? ???? ???? ???????? ???????????? ?? ?????? ????? ????
???? ?? ??? ????, ???????, ??????? ? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??.??. 10 ???????? ????, ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??, ?????? ? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?????????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??? ??- ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??.??. 10 ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ??? ??? ??, ????? ???? ?? ?????????? ????????, ??????? ???????? ? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???
It was further observed as under :
??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ????????????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???????, ??? ??????? ?????????, ???? ???????, ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ???????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ???? 498 ? , 304 ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ??, ????? ???? ???? ???????????? ?? ??? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ????????? ??? ????? ??? ?????????? ?????????, ???????, ???????? ? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???
21. In relation to statement given by PW.1 in court the trial court observed as under :
??????? ?????? ?? ??.?.1 ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??, ???? ???? ????... ?? ?? ????? ???? ??... ?? ???? ???? ??? ??... ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??????, ???? ????? ? ????????? ???? ??.... ???? ?? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ? ???????????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??... ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??... ????????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???
22. In relation to statement given by PW.10 Dharam Singh before the trial court observed as under :
???? ??.?.10 ???????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? .....???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????, ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ... ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ... ????????? , ???? ??? ???????, ???? ???????, ??? ??????, ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????, ????????? ?? ???? ?????? ? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??, ???????? ???? ??... ????????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??... ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??, ?? ??? ??? ???? ??... ???? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ? ???????? ???? ??... ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???"
23. In relation to statement given PW.11 Smt. Kiran, before the court, the trial court observed as under :
???? ??.?.11 ????? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??, ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? 25 ??? ????? ???? ??, ??? 15 ??? ??? 10 ??? ????? ?????? ???... ???? ???, ???? , ???, ????? ?????? ???? ?? ? ???? ?????? ???... ???????????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????, ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??....???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???, ???? ?? ??? ??, ???? ?? ????? ??? ??... ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??... ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????, ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???
24. In the statement before the Court PW.12 Govind Meena, stated thus -
"???? ??.?.12 ??????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??, ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ... ???? ?? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ????, ????, ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??... ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ??, ?????? ???? ?? ? ?????? ???? ??... ?? ???? ?? ???? ???.. ???????????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???"
25. In relation to Ex. P.6, which is a diary written by deceased Renu, it was observed by the trial court as under :
?? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ??. 6 ?? ??? ??? ????????? ?????? ?? ? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??.... ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??????, ?????? ?????? ???????? ???? ????? ??, ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ????, ?????? ???? ??? ??????: ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??, ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??
26. I have gone through the material placed for my perusal and the evidence as noticed by the trial court in the order dated 2.6.2011 extracted above, there is a substantive evidence against the accused petitioners Brij Mohan Meena, Smt. Ramdulari, Baney Singh and Rashmi for proceedings against them under section 319 Cr. P.C. I have also gone through the material relied by the father of the deceased and I do not find any material to connect the accused persons non-petitioners Prem Singh, Roop Singh, Braj Ballabh and Jagmohan in the crime at this stage, the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was rightly rejected by the trial court. The order passed by the trial court dated 2.6.2011 does not call for any interference by this court under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. The order passed by the trial court is just and proper and there is no illegality in it so as to interfere in the revisional powers of this court under section 397 Cr.P.C.
27. In the result the revision petitions filed by the petitionerts being devoid of merit stand rejected. The stay applications also stand disposed of.
(Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.
Pareek/ All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed (O P Pareek) PS-cum JW