Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Pandit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
1 CRR-375-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 375 of 2017
SHIV PANDIT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Satyendra Kumar Vyas - Senior Advocate with Shri Govind Rai
Purohit- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi - GA for the State.
(Heard on: 06.01.2026)
(Delivered on: 25.03.2026)
ORDER
This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is preferred challenging the order dated 30.01.2017 in ST No.224/2013 by the 4t h Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam (MP) whereby the revision petitioners have been summoned as accused under section 319 (2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in a case arising out of crime no.147/2013 registered at P.S.-Industrial Area Ratlam, District Ratlam under sections 302 and 506 read with section 34 of the IPC.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that FIR in crime No.147/2013 was lodged by Naved Khan at 5 p.m. of 15.04.2013 regarding murder of Saheer at 2:45 p.m. of 15.04.2013 in front of Chevrolet showroom near dargha of Pehalwan Baba Ratlam within the jurisdiction of Industrial Area, Ratlam Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 2 CRR-375-2017 disclosing the name of Shiv Pandit and Piyush Bhatt (present revision petitioners) and Bhupendra Pawar along with one another person. Completing the investigation, final report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 was submitted disclosing the offence of 302, 506 read with section 34 of the IPC and under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 against Bhupendra, Vaibhav and Manoj and keeping the investigation pending against present revision petitioners under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
3. The chronology of events reveals that first application under section 319(2) of the of the Cr.P.C., 1973 was disposed off on 02.03.2015 observing that order shall be passed after recording the statement of Naved Khan. Naved Khan was examined on 09.04.2015 as PW-10 and thereafter arguments were heard on the application under section 319(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2015. Order dated 30.05.2015 was challenged through CRR No.748/2015 before this court and vide order dated 21.08.2015, criminal revision was allowed and present revision petitioners were ordered to be summoned as accused. Order dated 21.08.2015 in CRR No.748/2015 of this court was challenged before the Apex Court and vide order dated 08.02.2016 in criminal appeal No.108/2016 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.8651/2015, the CRR No.748/2015 was directed to be decided afresh. Accordingly, vide order dated 02.01.2016 in CRR No.748/2015 order dated 30.05.2015 by the trial court was set aside and trial court was directed to decided the application expeditiously as early as possible and vide order dated 30.01.2017 application under section 319(2) of Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 3 CRR-375-2017 the Cr.P.C., 1973 was allowed and present revision petitioners Shiv Pandit and Piyush Bhatt was ordered to be summoned as accused.
4. Challenging the impugned order this revision petition is preferred on the ground that the evidence of other witnesses does not reveals that Naved Khan (PW-10) was present at the place where Saheer was shot. The witnesses have not been declared hostile and are binding on the prosecution case. The evidence of all the witnesses have to be seen while considering the case and the court cannot pick any particular evidence or statement. In the present case the only evidence against revision petitioner is Naved Khan (PW-10) and the statements of other witnesses are creating doubt on the presence and this witnesses. Police has not found any involvement of present revision petitioners and the investigations of the police indicates that the complainant/author of the FIR was not present at the time when incident took place. Apart from the statement of author of FIR more than 9 witnesses have also been examined and no witness other than Naved Khan, who himself was not present at the time of the incident have stated the name of the present revision petitioners. Petitioners have not assaulted any persons or caused any injury or any loss to any individuals. It is also argued that rojnamcha No.1202 dated 15.04.2013 written at 14:50 hrs at P.S. Industrial Area, Ratlam on the information received through telephone is not conformity with the narration of the incident stated by Naved Khan PW-10. This rojnamcha is the first and for most written action of the incident.
During the arguments a report of STF, Bhopal submitted on Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 4 CRR-375-2017 12.12.2015 through document No.13083/2025 by Shri Rajesh Joshi was also emphasized. Revision petitioners are referring to Bhagatram Vs. State of M.P. 1990 MPLJ 0770; Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2004) 7 SCC 792; Michale Machado Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2000) 3 SCC 262; Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan (2008) 14 SCC 51 .
5. Heard.
6. Counsel for the State opposes the criminal revision.
7. Perused the record.
8. Firstly, the legal principles for exercising the power under section 319 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 which is being reproduced below:-
" 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 the 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."
9. In Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others 2014 SCC 92 the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 5 CRR-375-2017 standard of evidence for exercising the power under section 319 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been laid down in para-98 and 99 which is being reproduced as below:-
"98. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
99. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
6 CRR-375-2017 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.
Q.(v) In what situations can the power under this section be exercised: Not named in FIR; Named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted or has been discharged?"
10. Yadwinder Singh Vs. Lakhi Alias Lakhwinder Singh and Another Etc. 2025 INSC 420 was the matter before the Apex Court wherein Special Investigating Team (SIT) was constituted to verify the facts because of the sensitive nature of the incident and SIT found that the respondents could not have been at the place of incident for cogent reasons i.e. (i) on the basis of witnesses supporting their presence at some other place(s) and (ii) also on the basis of CCTV footage, which is an electronic evidence but the Apex Court did not interfere in the order of summoning. Relevant paras- 16, 17 and 18 of the same is being reproduced as below:-
" 16. It is at this stage that the comparison of the words used under Section 319 CrPC has to be understood distinctively from the words used under Section 2(g) defining an inquiry other than the trial by a Magistrate or a court. Here the legislature has used two words, namely, the Magistrate or court, whereas Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
7 CRR-375-2017 under Section 319 CrPC, as indicated above, only the word "court" has been recited. This has been done by the legislature to emphasise that the power under Section 319 CrPC is exercisable only by the court and not by any officer not acting as a court. Thus, the Magistrate not functioning or exercising powers as a court can make an inquiry in a particular proceeding other than a trial but the material so collected would not be by a court during the course of an inquiry or a trial. The conclusion therefore, in short, is that in order to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC, it is only a Court of Session or a Court of Magistrate performing the duties as a court under CrPC that can utilise the material before it for the purpose of the said section.
17. Section 319 CrPC allows the court to proceed against any person who is not an accused in a case before it. Thus, the person against whom summons are issued in exercise of such powers, has to necessarily not be an accused already facing trial. He can either be a person named in Column 2 of the charge-sheet filed under Section 173 CrPC or a person whose name has been disclosed in any material before the court that is to be considered for the purpose of trying the offence, but not investigated. He has to be a person whose complicity may be indicated and connected with the commission of the offence.
18. The legislature cannot be presumed to Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 8 CRR-375-2017 have imagined all the circumstances and, therefore, it is the duty of the court to give full effect to the words used by the legislature so as to encompass any situation which the court may have to tackle while proceeding to try an offence and not allow a person who deserves to be tried to go scot-free by being not arraigned in the trial in spite of the possibility of his complicity which can be gathered from the documents presented by the prosecution."
11. In Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav vs State of U.P 2025 INSC 1386 Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the law governing the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and the relevant para- 6 and 7 are being reproduced below:-
"6. The law governing the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC is now well settled. The provision is an enabling one, empowering the Court, during the course of an inquiry or trial, to proceed against any person not already arraigned as an accused, if, from the evidence adduced before it, such person appears to have committed an offence. Its object is to ensure that no guilty person escapes the process of law, thereby giving effect to the maxim judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted). It casts a duty upon the Court to ensure that the real offender does not go unpunished, for only then can the concept of fair and complete trial be realised.Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 9 CRR-375-2017
7. It is no longer res integra that the power conferred under this Section is extraordinary and discretionary in nature, intended to be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection. While invoking it, the Court must be satisfied that the evidence appearing against the person sought to be summoned is such that it prima facie necessitates bringing such person to face trial. The degree of satisfaction required is higher than that warranted at the stage of framing of charge, yet short of the satisfaction necessary to record a conviction. Such satisfaction must rest on cogent and credible material brought on record during the trial, and not based on conjectures or speculations. In this regard, reference to a few judicial pronouncements of this Court would be apposite.
7.1. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (((2014) 3 SCC 92)) extensively discussed the power conferred under Section 319 CrPC. Relevant part is extracted hereunder:
"90. ... all that is required for the exercise of the power under Section 319 CrPC is that, it must appear to the court that some other person also who is not facing the trial, may also have been involved in the offence. The prerequisite for the exercise of this power is similar to the prima facie view which the Magistrate must come to in order to take cognizance of the offence. Therefore, no straitjacket formula can and should be laid Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 10 CRR-375-2017 with respect to conditions precedent for arriving at such an opinion and, if the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination- in-chief, it can exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC and can proceed against such other person(s). It is essential to note that the section also uses the words "such person could be tried" instead of should be tried. Hence, what is required is not to have a mini-trial at this stage by having examination and cross-examination and thereafter rendering a decision on the overt act of such person sought to be added. In fact, it is this mini-trial that would affect the right of the person sought to be arraigned as an accused rather than not having any cross-examination at all, for in light of sub-section (4) of Section 319 CrPC, the person would be entitled to a fresh trial where he would have all the rights including the right to cross examine prosecution witnesses and examine defence witnesses and advance his arguments upon the same. Therefore, even on the basis of examination-in-chief, the court or the Magistrate can proceed against a person as long as the court is satisfied that the evidence appearing against such person is such that it prima facie necessitates bringing such person to face trial. In fact, examination-in-chief untested by cross examination, undoubtedly in itself, is an evidence.Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 11 CRR-375-2017 xxx
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 CrPC 1973. In section 319 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 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 persons 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 of Cr.P.C.,1973 to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.
xxx
110. In Lal Suraj [Lal Suraj v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 2 SCC 696 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 844] , a two-Judge Bench held that there is no dispute with the legal proposition that even if a person had not been chargesheeted, he may come within the purview of the description of such a person Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
12 CRR-375-2017 as contained in Section 319 CrPC. A similar view had been taken in Lok Ram [Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh, (2006) 10 SCC 192 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 532 : AIR 2006 SC 1892], wherein it was held that a person, though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not charge-sheeted, can also be added to face the trial.
xxx 117.6. A person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been chargesheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 CrPC provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial..."
(emphasis supplied) 7.2 In S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak 2017 INSC 999 it reiterated that under this Section the Court possesses the power to summon the persons not named in the chargesheet to face trial, if the evidence on record so warrants. It further clarified that a statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, though not an independent piece of evidence, sufficient in itself to invoke the power under this Section may, nevertheless, be relied upon for corroborative purposes when supported by evidence emerging during trial. It was observed as under:
"34. ... No doubt, at one place the Constitution Bench observed in Hardeep Singh case [Hardeep Singh v. State of Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 13 CRR-375-2017 Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] that the word "evidence" has to be understood in its wider sense, both at the stage of trial and even at the stage of inquiry.
In para 105 of the judgment, however, it is observed that "only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner".This sentence gives an impression that only that evidence which has been led before the Court is to be seen and not the evidence which was collected at the stage of inquiry. However there is no contradiction between the two observations as the Court also clarified that the "evidence", on the basis of which an accused is to be summoned to face the trial in an ongoing case, has to be the material that is brought before the Court during trial. The material/evidence collected by the investigating officer at the stage of inquiry can only be utilised for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the Court to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC.
35. It needs to be highlighted that when a person is named in the FIR by the complainant, but police, after investigation, finds no role of that particular person and files the chargesheet without implicating him, the Court is not powerless, and at the stage of summoning, if the trial court finds that a particular person should be summoned as Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 14 CRR-375-2017 accused, even though not named in the chargesheet, it can do so. At that stage, chance is given to the complainant also to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in the FIR but not implicated in the chargesheet. Once that stage has gone, the Court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319 CrPC. However, this section gets triggered when during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused."
(emphasis supplied) 7.3 In Omi v. State of M.P. (((2025) 2 SCC
621)), a coordinate bench of this Court laid the following principles of law with regard to Section 319 CrPC:
"19. The principles of law as regards Section 319CrPC may be summarised as under:
19.1. On a careful reading of Section 319CrPC as well as the aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not charge-sheeted, can also be added to face the trial.
19.2. The trial court can take such a step to Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 15 CRR-375-2017 add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the chargesheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the chargesheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence. 19.3. The power of the court under Section 319CrPC is not controlled or governed by naming or not naming of the person concerned in the FIR. Nor the same is dependent upon submission of the chargesheet by the police against the person concerned. As regards the contention that the phrase "any person not being the accused"
occurred in Section 319 excludes from its operation an accused who has been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code and has been shown in Column 2 of the chargesheet, the contention has merely to be stated to be rejected. The said expression clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like Section 319(1) clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the criminal court are included in the said expression.
19.4. It would not be proper for the trial court to reject the application for addition of new accused by considering records of the investigating officer. When the evidence of Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 16 CRR-375-2017 complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance then the satisfaction of the investigating officer hardly matters. If satisfaction of investigating officer is to be treated as determinative then the purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated."
7.4. Recently, this Court, through one of us (Sanjay Karol, J.), in Shiv Baran Vs. State of U.P. 2025 INSC 860 summarised the principles that the Court ought to keep in mind while considering an application under this Section. It was observed:
"15. The principles that the Trial Court ought to follow while exercising power under this Section are:
(a) This provision is a facet of that area of law which gives protection to victims and society at large, ensuring that the perpetrators of crime should not escape the force of law;
(b) It is the duty cast upon the Court not to let the guilty get away unpunished;
(c) The Trial Court has broad but not unbridled power as this power can be exercised only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not any other material collected during investigation;
(d) The Trial Court is not powerless to summon a person who is not named in the FIR or Chargesheet; they can be impleaded if the evidence adduced inculpates him;
(e) This power is not to be exercised in a regular or cavalier manner, but only when strong or cogent evidence is available than Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 17 CRR-375-2017 the mere probability of complicity;
(f) The degree of satisfaction required is much stricter than the prima facie case, which is needed at the time of framing of charge(s);
(g) The Court should not conduct a mini-trial at this stage as the expression used is 'such person could be tried' and not 'should be tried'.
(emphasis supplied)
12. Recently the apex court in Mohammad Kaleem Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Other 2026 INSC 251 has laid down that scrutinizing contradiction and questioning of witnesses credibility is beyond scope of section 319 of CrPC 1973. The relevant para- 8, 9 and 10 are being reproduced as below:-
" 8. The Trial Court's reasoning in rejecting the Section 319 application, prima facie appears to be largely aligned with the principles laid down by this Court, such as the requirement that evidence must be strong and cogent rather than mere suspicion. Both Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab7 and Neeraj Kumar v. State of UP8 emphasize that the power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. The Court must assess whether the evidence on record, if unrebutted, reasonably indicates the involvement of the proposed accused.
9. At the same time, the Court has highlighted certain limits to the Trial Court's discretion at Section 319 CrPC. stage.Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 18 CRR-375-2017 Hardeep Singh(supra) clarified that the Court need not establish guilt or conduct a detailed credibility assessment at this stage, while Neeraj Kumar (supra) held that pre-trial scrutiny should not resemble a mintrial. The Trial Court, in this regard appears to have misdirected itself. In evaluating minor contradictions between witness statements and plausibility issues such as whether the complainant could have avoided injury, effectively applied a stricter standard than necessary.
10. Another instance is that higher than necessary standard being applied is reflected where the Court relied on the absence of jail records or highlighted minor discrepancies in hospital admission or FIR details. While these points raise valid questions about reliability, they are not points that can be gone into threadbare at this stage. Further, we find the Trial Court to have erred in taking a fragmented approach while appreciating evidence. The Trial Court treated each inconsistency in isolation rather than assessing the cumulative weight of all testimonies and circumstances. Similarly, reliance on documentary corroboration is not required; oral evidence alone, if credible, may suffice. The Court's emphasis on the lack of jail records and the physical plausibility of witness accounts could be seen as exceeding the threshold scrutiny expected at this stage. The Court overstepped the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 19 CRR-375-2017 intended scope of pre-trial scrutiny, overemphasized minor inconsistencies, and did not fully consider the cumulative force of the evidence. The law consistently balances caution against undue summoning with the need to ensure that potentially implicated individuals are brought to trial when the record, taken as a whole, reasonably supports it."
13. In the light of above principles where examination the correctness and legality of the impugned order keeping in mind the challenges raised by the revision petitioners till we are reproducing the satisfaction of trial court for someone in the revision petitioner still whether reproducing the satisfaction of trial court for summoning the revision petitioner as:-
" तुत करण म वचारण के अनु म म अब तक
अिभयोजन क ओर से कुल 12 सा ीगण को तुत /
पर त कया जा चुका है । इनम से घटना से संबंिधत सा ीगण राहुल शमा (अ.सा.1), हे मे िसंह िससो दया (अ.सा.2), वषा मजदे (अ.सा.3). अशोक (अ.सा.4), बाबूलाल (अ.सा.5) तथा थमसूचनाकता नावेद खान (अ.सा.10) है । इनम से सा ी नावेद खान (अ.सा.10) के मु य पर ण के अनुसार "घटना के समय जब वह, सह र, आ रफ हुसैन और सह र के चाचा यािसर शेवरलेट शो म के सामने चाय क होटल पर खडे हुए थे तब यहां पर दो मोटरसायकल आई थी. एक मोटरसायकल पर िशव पं डत और पयुष म ट बैठे थे तथा दस ू र पर भूपे िसंह पंवार और एक अ य य बैठे थे। पयुष भ ट और भूपे िसंह पंवार ने आते ह सह र के दोन हाथ पकड िलये और िशव पं डत ने उस पर गोली चला द जो सह र के िसर और गले के बीच म लगी थी इससे सह र िगर गया था। फर वे सह र को हॉ पटल लेकर गये जहां डॉ टर ने उसे मृत घो षत कर दया था।" इस कार घटना के इस थम सूचनाकता सा ी नावेद खान (अ.सा.10) ने उसके पर ण म घटना के समय अिभयु गण िशव पं डत और पयुष भ ट क मौके पर उप थित होना बताते हुए िशव पं डत ारा गोली मारे जाने से सह र क मृ यु होना बताया है । इस कार इस थम Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 20 CRR-375-2017 सूचनाकता सा ी ने उसके यायालयीन पर ण म उसके ारा सं थत थम सूचना रपोट के अनुसार कथन करते हुए उ अिभयु गण के व कथन कये है ।
अिभयोजन क ओर से तुत अ य सा ीगण ारा भी घटना के समय मौके पर गोली चलने क आवाज आना बताते हुए सह र को गोली लगने और उसक मृ यु होने संबंधी कथन कये गये है । व तुतः बारा 319 दं ड या सं हता के अधीन यायालय को यह वचार कया जाना है क या अपराध के वचारण के दौरान आई सा य से यह तीत होता है क कसी य ने कोई ऐसा अपराध कया है जसके िलये उसका अिभयु के साथ वचारण कया जा सकता है , वहां यायालय उस य के व कायवाह कर सकता है और प र थित अनुसार उसे िगरफ् तार या समन कया जा सकता है । यह प है क धारा 319 दं ड या सं हता के म पर अिभलेखगत सा य का गुण दोष के आधार पर व तृत ववेचन आव यक नह ं है । इस म पर केवल यह वचार कया जाना होता है क या सा य से यह तीत हो रहा है क कसी अ य य ारा भी ऐसा कोई अपराध कया गया है ?
अिभलेख पर उपल ध सा ी नावेद खान (अ.सा.10) के मु य पर ण से थम या घटना थल पर ता वत अिभयु गण िशव मं डत तथा पयुष भ ट क उप थित और उनक अपराध म सहभािगता होना कट होती है ।
करण क थम सूचना रपोट म भी ता वत
अिभयु गण िशव पं डत तथा पयुष भ ट क मौके पर
उप थित और अपराध म उनक सहभािगता का उ लेख
है । अिभयोजन क ओर से तुत / पर त अ य
सा ीगण क प रसा य के आलोक म इस म पर
अिभयोजन सा ी नावेद खान के कथन क व सनीयता का पर ण अ यिधक उ च तर पर कया जाना अपे त नह ं है । इस कम पर सा ी नावेद के कथन को वरोधाभास, वलुि य और अ य सा ीगण क प रसा य से समथन के आधार पर पूणतः गुणदोष क कसौट पर नह ं कसा जाना है । ता वत अिभयु गण थम सूचना रपोट म नािमत होकर उनके व अनुसंधान जार होना दशाया गया है । व ान पूवािधकार ारा वरिचत आरोप प म भी ता वत अिभयु गण ारा कये गये कृ य का प उ लेख है । ऐसी दशा म सा ी नावेद खान के कथन के आलोक म ता वत अिभयु गण िशव पं डत और पयुष भ ट के व थम या अपराध आरोपण संबंधी सा य उपल ध होना कट होता है ।"
14. After the impugned order 30.01.2017 one more witness Shakti Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
21 CRR-375-2017 Singh Sattar was also examined as PW-13 on 20.06.2018. This witness was examined to prove the memo Exhibit-P/14, P/15 and P/16 prepared on the information of co-accused Bhupendra @ Lala, Vaibhav and Manoj and this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.
15. Now come to the challenges to the impugned order raised by the revision petitioners. Arguments based on the report of STF Bhopal submitted on 12/12/2015 through document number No.13083/2025 have no relevance in the light of Yadwinder Singh (Supra) . So also the arguments that police has not found any involvement of the present revision petitioners and investigation of the police founds that complainant/author of the FIR was not present at the time when incident took place also have no relevance.
16. Now come to the challenge based on the arguments that testimony of other witness Rahul Sharma PW-1, Hemant Singh Sisodia PW-2, Varsha Majde PW-3, Ashok PW-4 and Babulal Meena PW-5 does not reveals that Naved Khan PW-10 was present at the place when Shahid was shot specially in the light of fact that this witness have not been declared hostile and their testimony is binding on the prosecution.
17. Record reveals that Babu Lal Meena examined as PW-5 was declared hostile but Ashok examined as PW-4, Varsha Majde examined as PW-3, Hemant Singh Sisodiya PW-2 and Rahul Sharma examined as PW-1 were not declared hostile. Record reveals upto examination of Ashok examined as PW-4 the prosecution was being conducted by Additional Public Prosecutor whereas from the witness Babulal Meena PW-5 and thereafter prosecution was being conducted by Special Public Prosecutor Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 22 CRR-375-2017 who declared the witness Babulal Meena PW-5 and thereafter, Adarsh Kapoor PW-6, Raju Pal PW-7 and Atif Khan PW-11 and Shakti Singh Sattar PW-13 hostile.
18. Now the question before the court is whether cumulative weight of all these testimony and circumstances fulfills the requirement of "strong and cogent evidence" justifying exercise of extra ordinary and sparing power to summon the revision petitioners as additional accused under section 319 of Cr.P.C. 1973. Testing the present case on the above standard, we have to keep in mind that each inconsistency is not to be seen in isolation and the question of reliability have not to be examined at this stage.
19. The circumstances of the case are that an information was recorded in rojnamcha No.1202 dated 15.04.2013 at 14:50 hours at Industrial Area, Ratlam received through telephone that a person have sustained injury by gunshot fire in the hotel of Pehalwan Baba ki Dargah Ratlam. Thereafter disclosing the time of incident as 14:45 hours on 15.04.2013, on FIR bearing crime number 147/2013 was lodged by Naved Khan Khan PW-10 at 17:00 hours on 15.04.2013 in which the place of incident is mentioned as in front of Chevrolet showroom, Pehalwan Baba ki Dargah, Police Station- Industrial Area, Ratlam and the name of the deceased is mentioned as Shaheer and number of assailants is 4 persons including the revision petitioners Shiv Pandit and Piyush Bhatt. The specific role of the revision petitioners is also mentioned. There is no apparent inconsistency between the entry of the rojnamcha No.1202 dated 15.04.2013 and FIR lodged at 17:00 hours on 15.04.2013 after taking Shaheer to hospital and declaring Shaheer as Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139 23 CRR-375-2017 dead. Circumstance is that Naved Khan and deceased Shaheer were student and they were together due to the examination of B.Com II Semester at SSIT College Ratlam. The death of Shaheer was reported due to cardio respiratory failure, due to injury on brain by bullet.
20. Applying the test of "cumulative weight of the testimony", the perusal of testimony of Naved Khan (PW-10) including cross-examination corroborated with the FIR and considering the above circumstances mentioned in para-19, the order of the trial court dated 30.01.2017 does not suffer any illegality and the revision petitioners does not succeed on the strength of Bhagatram (supra), Krishnappa (supra), Michale Machado (supra), and Kailash (supra). Accordingly, this revision petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
21. Copy of the order be forwarded to the trial court along with the record of the case for necessary compliance.
(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE ajit Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:54:08