Allahabad High Court
Vidya Ram Sahu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 July, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114839 Reserved on: 27.05.2024 Delivered on: 16.07.2024 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1974 of 2023 Revisionist :- Vidya Ram Sahu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shivajee Singh Sisodiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramesh Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.1, Bareilly, in Sessions Trial No. 374 of 2016 (State Vs. Navneet Sahu and others) under Sections 302, 147, 404, 120 B I.P.C. P.S.- Fatehganj (West), District Bareilly, whereby the revisionist who is a prospective accused but has now been summoned by court below to face trial in aforementioned trial, has approached this court by means of present criminal revision.
2. Heard Mr. Shivajee Singh Sisodiya, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel representing opposite party 2 Ram Autar (the brother of the deceased).
3. Perused the record.
4. Record shows that marriage of Priti (daughter-in-law of revisionist-Vidya Ram Sahu) was solemnized with Navneet Sahu on 10.06.2015. After expiry of a period of five months and twenty days from the date of marriage of Navneet Sahu (the son of revisionist) with Priti, an unfortunate incident occurred on 30.11.2015 in which Priti (the daughter in law of present revisionist) died in suspicious circumstances.
5. In respect of above incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 30.11.2015 and according to the first informant/revisionist, the nature of crime was loot/robbery in which, daughter-in-law of the first informant namely Priti sustained injury and ultimately died, a delayed F.I.R. dated 01.12.2015 was lodged by first informant- Vidya Ram Sahu (father-in-law of deceased), the revisionist (herein) and was registered as Case Crime No. 272 of 2015, under Sections 302, 147, 404 and 120B I.P.C. P.S. Fatehgnaj, (West), District-Bareilly. In the aforesaid F.I.R. an unknown person has been arraigned as solitary accused.
6. Subsequent to the aforesaid FIR, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. He first visited the place of occurrence and thereafter recovered the body of the deceased. After completing the proceedings of inquest (Panchayatnama), the dead body of the deceased, he prepared the police scroll, was dispatched for post mortem. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 01.12.2015. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased, the cause of death of deceased is shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. The Autopsy Surgeon found following any mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:
"1. Multiple superficial skin deep abrasion are on ..... aspect of neck 8 cm below Lt. ear below chin. 27 cm below Rt. Ear. ii. Incised wound margins clear cut, inverted on left side neck 6 cm below left ear and left angle of mouth. Iii. Incised wound margins clear cut, 1.5 x .5 cm on right side neck, 3 cm below right ear. iv. Multiple linear abrasion skin lap on the medial aspect of right thy 4 cm above patela. v. Eyes closed, hand clenched."
7. Having completed the procedural formalities, Investigating Officer proceeded to examine the veracity of the allegations made in the FIR and also the complicity of named accused and others, in the crime in question. Thereafter, Investigating Officer examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer gathered information that complicity of Navneet Sahu, Brij Kishore, Kallu Khan, Sharafat Ali, Jabir and Rahul is prima facie established in the crime in question. He also recovered the weapon of assault (knife) used in the commission of crime in question on the pointing of accused Jabir. On the basis of above and other material collected by him during course of investigation, the Investigating Officer opined to submit a police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. He, accordingly, submitted the said police report dated 24.12.2016, whereby not named accused namely Navneet Sahu, Brij Kishore, Kallu Khan, Sharafat Ali, Jabir and Rahul have been charge sheeted under Section 147, 148, 302, 404 and 120B I.P.C.
8. Upon submission of aforementioned police report, the concerned Magistrate in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. took cognizance upon same. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, concerned Magistrate, in compliance of Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions. Resultantly Sessions Trial No. 374 of 2016 (State Vs, Navneet Sahu and others) under Section 302, 147, 404, 120 B I.P.C. P.S.- Fatehganj (West), District Bareilly came to be registered. Same is now said to be pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Bareilly.
9. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. He, accordingly, in line with section 211 Cr.P.C. framed charges against charge sheeted accused, who denied the same and demanded trial. Resultantly, the trial procedure commenced.
10. Prosecution in discharge of it's burden to bring home the charges so framed against charge sheeted accused adduced the following prosecution witnesses upto this stage I. P.W.-1 Ram Awtar (brother of the deceased) II. P.W.-2 Dr. Digvijay Singh III. P.W.-3 Ramwati (mother of the deceased) IV. P.W.-4 Shyam Babu
11. After the statement-in-chief/examination-in-chief of aforementioned prosecution witnesses were recorded, prosecution/first informant filed an application dated 04.04.2022, under Section 319 Cr. P. C. praying therein that since complicity of Vidya Ram Sahu, father of charge sheeted accused Navneet Sahu/the first informant is also established in the crime in question, therefore, he be also summoned to face trial in aforementioned Sessions Trial. This application came to be registered as Paper No. 18 Ka.
12. Court below, thereafter, proceeded to decide above mentioned application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution in the light of material of record as well as the depositions of the prosecution witnesses recorded upto this stage. On the basis of examination and evaluation of the allegations made in aforesaid application, court below came to the conclusion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case i.e. relationship between the parties and the manner in which, the offence has been committed, the complicity of prospective accused i.e. Vidya Ram Sahu (father-in-law of deceased) is prima facie established in the crime in question. Accordingly, vide order dated 02.03.2022, court below i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Bareilly, allowed the application dated 04.04.2022, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and consequently, summoned the revisionist to face trial in above noted Sessions Trial.
13. Thus feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 02.03.2022 passed by court below, the revisionist has now approached this Court by means of present criminal revision.
14. Mr. Shivajee Singh Sisodiya, the learned counsel for revisionist submits that the order impugned in present criminal revision is manifestly illegal and therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, he submits that revisionist is the father-in-law of the deceased. The F.I.R. giving rise to present criminal revision was lodged by the revisionist himself. Irrespective of above, the revisionist, who is the first informant in the criminal proceedings, has now been implicated therein as an accused and has been summoned by court below to face trial. Referring to the material on record, he contends that the prosecution witnesses examined upto this stage are not the eye witnesses of the occurrence. The revisionist has been summoned by court below only on the ground that since the marriage of deceased had taken place with the son of revisionist on 10.06.2015 and the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings occurred on 30.11.2015 i.e. before expiry of a period of seven years from the date of marriage, as such, the revisionist is liable to face trial. However, with reference to the depositions of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, who have deposed before Court below upto this stage, it is urged by the learned counsel for revisionist that only vague and bald allegations regarding demand of additional dowry and commission of cruelty have been made, therefore, simply on the basis of above, it cannot be presumed that revisionist is also guilty of committing the offence in question. Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599, it was urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist that since the allegations regarding demand of additional dowry and commission of cruelty upon the deceased do not stand established for want of material particulars, therefore, the said allegations, which have also emerged in the depositions of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 against the revisionist are not worthy of acceptance. On the above premise, he, therefore, contends that order impugned passed by court below cannot be sustained in law and fact. Consequently, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court.
15. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 have vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. They submit that order impugned is perfectly just and legal. The death of deceased namely Priti (daughter in law of present revisionist) has occurred within a period of seven years from the date of marriage of Priti, therefore, by operation of law, the death of the deceased is a dowry death. In such a circumstance, the burden is upon the revisionist himself to explain his innocence and the said burden can be discharged by revisionist only when faces the trial. Attention of the court was then invited to the depositions of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3. With reference to the depositions of P.W.1 Ram Awtar (brother of the deceased) and P.W.-3- Ramwati (mother of the deceased), the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 submits that as per depositions of the aforesaid witnesses, it has clearly emerged that additional demand of dowry to the tune of Rs. 5 Lakhs was raised by Navneet Sahu, the husband of the deceased, who had developed illicit relationship with another girl, which was objected to by the deceased Priti. It is on account of aforesaid that sister of the opposite party-2 namely Priti has been put to death. The cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.-3 has already been undertaken at the behest of the charge sheeted accused i.e. Navneet Sahu (son of revisionist), in spite of lengthy cross examination of aforementioned witnesses, no such fact could be culled out from aforementioned prosecution witnesses, so as to discard their depositions being unworthy of credit or the witnesses themselves being unworthy of trust. In view of above, a prima-facie case for summoning the revisionist was clearly made out. It is, thus, urged that no illegality has been committed by court below in passing the order impugned.
16. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 that apart from above, an offence under Section 304 B is subject to negative evidence inasmuch as, the burden is upon the accused himself to establish his innocence by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act. At this stage, the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 invited the attention of Court to paragraph 11 of the order impugned and on basis thereof, he submits that it is because of above noted peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that revisionist has also been alternatively summoned under Section 304B and 498 A I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act. They, therefore, conclude that since the order impugned in present criminal revision does not suffer form any error of law and fact apparent on the face of record, therefore, present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
17. Having heard Mr. Shivajee Singh Sisodiya, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for first informant-opposite party 2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the primary 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 corollary to above, Court will also have to consider:-Whether the order impugned is within the established parameters or not?
18. Parameters regarding exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C. have been considered time and again by the Supreme Court. The chronology of same is as under:
(i) Dharam Pal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2014) 3 SCC 306 (Five Judges Bench)
(ii) Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Five Judges Bench) Paragraphs 4,5,6,6.5, 7, 11, 55, 56, 57, 85, 92, 105, 106, 116, 117.1 to 117.6.
(iii) Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 568 Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 15, 20, 21 and 22.
(iv) Jogendra Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2015) 9 SCc 244 Paragraph 13.
(v). Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Suman Bhai Kantibhai Patel and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 177,
(vi) Brijendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) SCC 706 Paragraphs 13, 14 and 15.
(vii) S Mohammed Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 226 Paragraphs 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37.
(viii) Deepu @ Deepak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) 2 SCC 393 Paragraph 7.
(ix) Dev Wati and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2019) 4 SCC 329 Paragraph 8 and 9.
(x) Periyasamai and Others Vs. S.Nallasamy, (2019) 4 SCC 342 Paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16.
(xi) Sunil Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2019) 4 SCC 556 Paragraphs 13 and 14.
(xii) Labhuji Amratji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 12 SCC 644 Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.
(xiii) Rajesh and Others Vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368 Paragraphs 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 7 and 8.
(xiv) Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2019) 6 SCC 638 Paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27
(xv) Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2019) 7 SCC 806 Paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 (xvi) Mani Pushpak Joshi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, (2019) 9 SCC 805 Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.
(xvi) Sugreev Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2019) SCC Online Sc 390 Paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23.
(xviii) Saeeda Khatoon Arshi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2020) 2 SCC 323, (xix). Ajay Kumar @ Bittu and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, (2021) 4 SCC 301 (xx) Sartaj Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2021) 5 SCC 337 Paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 17 (xxi) Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 632 Paragraphs 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38.
(xxii) Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Vs. The State of U.P. and another, 2021 SCC Online (SC) 741 Supreme Court remanded the matter before Sessions Judge for decision afresh. (xxiii). Sagar Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine 289 (xxiv). Naveen Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2022) 10 SCC 537 (xxv). Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289 (Five Judges Bench), Paragraphs 7, 37, 38 and 41.
(xxvi). Jhuru and Others Vs. Qarim and Another, (2023) 5 SCC 406, (xxvii). Jitendra Nath Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2023 (7) SCC 344, (xxviii). Vikas Rathi Vs. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 211, (xxix) Yashodhan Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2023) 9 SCC 108, Paragraphs 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43.
(xxx) Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 888, (xxxi). Aarif and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1375 (xxxii). Gurdev Singh Bhalla Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2024) 3 SCC 172 (xxxiii). N. Manogar and Another Vs. Inspector of Police and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 174 (xxxiv). Shankar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 730.
19. With the aid of above, the Court now proceeds to examine the veracity of impugned order dated 02.03.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.1, Bareilly, in Sessions Trial No. 374 of 2016 (State Vs, Navneet Sahu and others) under Sections 302, 147, 404, 120 B I.P.C. P.S.- Fatehganj (West), District Bareilly, whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution/first informant to summon the prospective accused has been rejected.
20. Before proceeding to do so, it must be noticed that following issues stand settled as per judgements mentioned herein above and, therefore, they are not required to be dealt with.
21. 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 prosecution witnesses to be recorded, so that non-charge sheeted accused could be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., vide Five Judges Bench Judgment in Dharam Pal (Supra).
22. 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).
23. A prospective accused can be summoned on the basis of the statement-in-chief of one prosecution witness without getting his examination-in-chief recorded, vide Five Judges Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh (Supra).
24. The Court while summoning a prospective accused must come to the conclusion that a prima-facie case for summoning a prospective accused is made out and in this regard, the Court must record it's satisfaction in consonance with the observation made in paragraph 106 of the Five Judges Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh (Supra).
25. Though in view of the law laid down by the Five Judges Bench in Hardeep Singh (Supra) that a prospective accused can be summoned on the basis of statement-in-chief of one prosecution witness but in case, if the statement of the witness, who has deposed before Court below was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then in such a circumstance, the Court must draw a parallel in between the deposition of the witness as well as his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to find out whether something new has emerged in the deposition or not? vide Brijendra Singh (Supra).
26. The Court must consider the plethora of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as it is a relevant material, vide Brijendra Singh (Supra).
27. A prospective accused can be summoned only if, an inference of guilt of the accused can be drawn as per the material on record, vide Brijendra Singh (Supra).
28. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary discretionary power, which should be exercised sparingly, vide S Mohammad Ishpahani (Supra).
29. A prospective accused should not be summoned by a Court by exercising it's jurisdiction in a casual and cavalier fashion but diligently, vide S Mohammad Ishpahani (Supra).
30. Court can summon a prospective accused by exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only when some strong and cogent evidence had emerged against a prospective accused and not merely on the basis of his complicity in the crime in question, vide S Mohammad Ishpahani (Supra).
31. In the judgments referred to above, there is a common thread that the Court can scrutinize the evidence/material on record while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
32. The evidence of an injured eye witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, the said statement is not to be discarded lightly, vide paragraph 37 of judgement in Manjeet Singh (Supra).
33. 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).
34. In Sukhpal Singh Khaira (Supra), a subsequent Bench of Supreme Court opined that the law laid down by Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh (Supra) requires re-consideration as certain questions remain unanswered in the Constitution Bench Judgement and further the parameters regarding exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C need to be re-laid down.
35. 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.
36. The reference made by the 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 319 CrPC 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.
37. 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).
38. In Sandeep Kumar (Supra), the Court after noticing paragraphs 95 to 106 of the Five Judges Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh (Supra), considered the ingredients of Section 149 IPC and with reference to above, upheld the order of trial Court, on the finding that in case, a person is a member of an unlawful assembly, the ingredients of Section 149 IPC are satisfied and therefore, no material qua the innocence of such an accused is required to be looked into at the stage of deciding an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
39. Having noted the settled position, the Court is now required to consider whether on the basis of depositions of PW-1 Ram Awtar (brother of the deceased), PW-2 Dr. Digvijay Singh, PW-3 Ramwati (mother of the deceased) and PW-4 Shyam Babu, the prospective accused 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 fashion."
40. A Five Judges Bench Judgement of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC, 92 has held that a prospective accused can be summoned on the basis of statement in chief of one prosecution witness. Court dealing with an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. need not defer the disposal of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. till the entire prosecution evidence is recorded. In the present case four prosecution witnesses of fact have deposed before court below. Three of the prosecution witnesses have also been cross-examined. Therefore, the depositions of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 fall in the realm of legal evidence, whereas in view of law as noted above, the statement in chief of P.W.-4 can also be considered for deciding the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by prosecution. As such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by Court below in deciding the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of depositions of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 only and not on the basis of entire prosecution evidence.
41. In the same judgement, the Apex Court has further observed that before summoning a prospective accused, the Court has to record a satisfaction that a prima facie case for summoning the prospective accused is made out. The Bench has also crystallized the nature of said satisfaction which is required to be observed by court before summoning a prospective accused. The same is manifest in paragraph 106 of the report. Accordingly, paragraph 106 of the aforesaid judgement is extracted herein 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." "
42. Even though the parameters regarding exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr. P. C were formulated by the Five Judges Bench in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra), subsequently two different Division Benches of the Apex Court in Brijendra Singh and others Vs State of Rajasthan, (2017) SCC 706 and S. Mohammad Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chamdak and others, (2017) 16 SCC 226 have redefined the parameters regarding exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid two judgments, the following mandates stand emerged:-
(a) a prospective accused can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. upon consideration of the statement-in-chief of one prosecution witness. As such, Court concerned need not wait for the entire prosecution evidence to be recorded.
(b) the plethora of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation is required to be looked into by a Court dealing with an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as it is a relevant material.
(c) Court while dealing with an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must examine the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, draw a parallel to find out whether something new has emerged in the deposition of such a witness.
(d) a prospective accused cannot be summoned simply on the basis of his mere complicity in the crime in question
(e) Court can summon a prospective accused in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only if, an inference of guilt of the prospective accused can be gathered from the material on record.
(f) jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction and should be exercised sparingly.
(g) Court should exercise it's jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. diligently and not in a casual and cavalier fashion.
(h) a prospective accused can be summoned only when some strong and cogent evidence has emerged against him and not merely on the basis of his complicity in the crime in question.
43. Admittedly, in the present case, P.W.-1, Ram Awtar (brother of deceased) and P.W.-3, Ramwati (mother of the deceased), in their depositions before court below, have categorically stated about demand of additional dowry to the tune of Rs. 5 Lacs, by the husband of deceased namely Navneet Sahu (charge sheeted accused) and Vidya Ram Sahu (father-in-law of the deceased), a prospective accused and revisionist (herein). They have also deposed that physical and mental cruelty was committed upon deceased by her husband and the father-in-law on account of non fulfilment of additional demand of dowry. It has also come in evidence that Rs. 8 Lacs were given at the time of marriage for purchasing a car. In complete disregard of the sanctity of marriage, as the parties are Hindus, the husband Navneet Sahu maintained illicit relations with another girl, on account of which, relationship in between the deceased and her husband Navneet Sahu became strained. As such, marital discard emerged. Admittedly, the marriage of deceased was solemnized with Navneet Sahu, the son of present revisionist on 10.06.2015 and the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings occurred on 30.11.2015. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the death of deceased is a dowry death and therefore, the burden is upon the accused themselves to explain their innocence. The aforesaid burden can be discharged by the charge sheeted accused/prospective accused only during the course of trial pending before Court below. The suspicious and calandestine manner, in which, the death of deceased has occurred, prima-facie does not point at the innocence of the accused i.e. charge sheeted as well as prospective. Therefore, it cannot be said that no prima-facie case for summoning the prospective accused i.e. revisionist herein is not made out nor it can be concluded that as per material on record no inference regarding the guilt of prospective accused can be inferred. Strong and cogent evidence has emerged against the prospective accused, which is much more than his mere complicity in the crime in question. When the circumstances as noted above are examined and evaluated in the light of the undisputed fact that marriage of deceased Priti was solemnized with Navneet Sahu, the son of the present revisionist on 10.06.2015 and the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred on 30.11.2015, then in the peculiar and suspicious circumstances of the case as noted herein above, it cannot be said that Court below, while passing the order impugned, has committed a jurisdictional error or has exercised it's jurisdiction with such material irregularity so as to vitiate the order impugned and warrant interference by this Court.
44. In view of the discussion made above, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.
45. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.07.2024 Vinay