Allahabad High Court
Shyam Narayan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 25 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23664 Reserved on 24.01.2025 Delivered on 25.04.2025 Court No. - 7 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 286 of 2025 Applicant :- Shyam Narayan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Mohan,Salil Mohan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned Senior Member of the Bar assisted by Sri Satya Narain Mishra, Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been filed challenging the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, Gangster/Additional Sessions Judge (V), Ayodhya in Sessions Trial No. 895 of 1996 (State vs. Sushil Kumar Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 999/1996, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Ayodhya, District- Faizabad (now Ayodhya).
3. Vide order impugned dated 22.11.2024 passed in exercise of Power vested in the trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the applicant has been summoned to face the trial for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC.
4. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that an FIR was lodged on 27.06.1996 (the date mentioned on the FIR annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the present application) by the opposite party No. 2, which was registered as Case Crime No. 999/1996, under Section 302/201 IPC at Police Station- Kotwali Ayodhya, District- Faizabad (now Ayodhya).
5. According to the aforesaid FIR, on 23.06.1996 at about 8.30 AM, the deceased/Preeti Kumar Pandey after informing the informant that he is going to take bath went to the house of the applicant and started watching TV serial known as 'Krishna', where, applicant's family members and co-accused/Ram Kumar Das were also present. After about 15-20 minutes, the deceased/Preeti Kumar Pandey and Ram Kumar Das went out and after the serial was over, Ram Kumar Das alone came back there and the deceased/Preeti Kumar Pandey could not be traced out and therefore, a missing report was lodged at Police Station- Ayodhya on 26.06.1996 at about 10.30 hours.
6. The FIR further indicates that on 27.06.1996, the body of the deceased was found tied in a 'Sack' from the 'well' situated at Hanuman Garhi Bagiya which is located near 'Adgada' crossing.
7. According to the FIR, co-accused/Ram Kumar Das and the applicant were involved in the crime and therefore, taking note of the contents of the FIR, the same was lodged against the applicant and Ram Kumar Das.
8. After lodging of the aforesaid FIR, the Investigating Officer (in short "IO") submitted the charge sheet dated 08.09.1996 under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC against Shyam Narayan Singh (present applicant), Hariram, Ram Kumar Das and Sushil Kumar.
9. Co-accused Ram Kumar Das and Sushil Kumar were apprehended and subsequently released on bail and the charges against these accused were framed as appears from the record including the order impugned dated 22.11.2024.
10. The applicant and Hariram were declared absconder and therefore, the trial court issued Non-bailable Warrant on 18.07.2000 against these persons.
11. The order dated 18.07.2000 is extracted hereunder:-
"18-7-2000 49-ब प्रार्थनापत्र अभियोजन पक्ष द्वारा इस आशय का दिया गया है कि इस मुकदमें का वादी रामफेर पाण्डेय अभियोजन साक्षी संख्या-1 ने न्यायालय में साक्ष्य देते समय अपने मुख्य बयान में कहा है कि अभियुक्त श्याम नरायन सिंह व हरीराम झा का नाम बतौर अभियुक्त लिया है तथा अभियुक्त श्याम नरायन सिंह प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट में मय नामजद अभियुक्त है और अभियुक्त हरीराम झा का नाम विवेचना दौरान प्रकाश में आया था। परन्तु कुर्की होने के बावजूद वह दरखाफ नहीं हो सका। जब कि श्याम नरायन सिंह सरकारी नौकरी में है और अपने मोहल्ला स्वर्गद्वार अयोध्या में रहता है अतः इन दोनों अभियुक्तों को न्यायालय द्वारा तलब करके इनका परीक्षण इसी सत्र परीक्षण में किया जाय।
मैने आरोपपत्र देखा। जिसमें अभियुक्त श्याम नरायन सिंह एवं हरीराम झा को बतौर मफरूर अभियुक्त दिखाया गया है। अभियुक्त श्याम नरायन सिंह के बारे में कहा (not legible)गया है कि वह सरकारी नौकरी में है और कस्बा अयोध्या में रहता तथा अभियुक्त हरीराम झा के बारे में आरोपपत्र देखने से स्पष्ट होता है कि वह कस्बा अयोध्या में ही निमोचन घाट में रहता है। प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट में अभियुक्त श्याम नरायन सिंह का नाम भी बतौर अभियुक्त कहा गया है। इन परिस्थितियों में मैं अभियोजन पक्ष द्वारा दिए गए प्रार्थनापत्र 49-ब को स्वीकार किए जाने योग्य पाता हूं तथा मुकदमों की बहुलता से बचने के लिए मैं आवश्यक समझता हूं कि अभियुक्तगण श्याम नरायन सिंह एवं हरीराम झा को तलब करके इसी मुकदमें में परीक्षण किया जाय। चूंकि इन दोनों परीक्षणों के विरूद्ध मफरूरी में आरोपपत्र लगाए गए है। अतः इन दोनों अभियुक्तों को जरिए गैर जमानती वारेन्ट 31.7.2000 को परीक्षण के लिए तलब किया जाय।"
12. The order dated 18.07.2000 was challenged by the applicant before this Court by means of Crl. Misc. Case No. 882 of 2000 (Shyam Narain Singh vs. State). Certified copy of this application alongwith copy of order dated 18.07.2000, quoted above, and other documents placed before this Court by learned AGA is taken on record. This application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2003. The order dated 24.03.2003 reads as under:-
"This is a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C challenging the order of the court issuing non bailable warrants against two persons under section 319 of the Cr.P.C for committing offence under section 302 I.P.C read with section 120 of the I.P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.
It is argued that the only averments in the F.I.R against the petitioner is that it appears the complainant has suspicion that the petitioner has committed the crime. However, the trial court has recorded the evidence of P.W.1 where in it has been stated that Shyam Narain petitioner had demanded rupees 5,000/ from the deceased, son of the complainant. It is further argued that it has not been connected with the crime that the demand was made for what count. The court may issue and summon or warrants at any stage of the case if there is sufficient evidence against any person. At present the order for summoning the accused is quashed but it shall not bar the court from re-summoning the accused under section 319 of the Cr.P.C if there is sufficient evidence against him.
In the light of the above, the petition deserves to be allowed.
The petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 18.7.2000 is set aside."
13. It would be apt to indicate at this stage that the order dated 18.07.2000 was passed after examination of PW-1 namely Ram Feran Pandey.
14. It would also be apt to indicate at this stage that the record indicates that the applicant was regularly appearing before the trial court and was putting/making signature(s) over the order sheet.
15. Reverting to the facts, during trial, the prosecution moved an application for examination of Sharda Devi and Suchita Tiwari, which was allowed and thereafter, Sharda Devi and Suchita Tiwari were examined before the trial court as PW-13 and PW-14, respectively.
16. Thereafter, based upon the evidence available on record including the statements of PW-13 and PW-14, the prosecution preferred an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 22.11.2024. The order dated 22.11.2024 is extracted hereunder:-
"दिनांक 22.11.2024
1. पत्रावली पेश हुई। पुकार करायी गयी। पुकार पर अभियुक्त उपस्थित। सी. बी.सी.आई.डी. गोरखपुर के विशेष अभियोजन अधिकारी सी०बी०सी०आई०डी० द्वारा प्रार्थनापत्र 335ब प्रस्तुत करते हुये श्याम नरायन सिंह को बतौर अभियुक्त विचारण हेतु तलब किये जाने हेतु प्रस्तुत किया गया है।
2. उक्त प्रार्थनापत्र 335ब के समर्थन में विशेष अभियोजन अधिकारी सी०बी०सी०आई०डी० द्वारा यह बहस कि गई है कि अभियुक्त रामकुमार, सुशील कुमार, श्याम नरायण सिंह व हरिराम के विरूद्ध थाना पुलिस कोतवाली अयोध्या द्वारा न्यायालय में आरोप पत्र दिनांकित 08.09.1996 अंर्तगत धारा 302,201,120 बी भा०द०सं० प्रेषित किया गया था, जिसमें क्रमांक नं0-3 श्याम नारायन सिंह व क्रमांक 4 पर अंकित हरिराम को मफरूर दिखाया गया था। अर्थात् अभियुक्त श्याम नारायन सिंह व हरिराम के विरूद्ध मफरूरी (फरार अभियुक्तगण) में आरोप प्रेषित किया गया तथा अग्रिम विवेचना सी.बी.सी.आई.डी. को सुपुर्द की गयी। तत्पश्चात अभियुक्त रामकुमार, सुशील कुमार के आरोप विरचित कर साक्षी पी०डब्लू० 1 का बयान भी दर्ज किया गया। मौखिक बयान में साक्षी द्वारा अभियुक्त श्याम नरायण सिंह का निवासरत पते के बारे मे बयान दिया गया। तब अभियोजन की ओर से प्रार्थना पत्र 49 ब प्रस्तुत कर अभियुक्त श्यामनरायन सिंह एवं हरीराम झा को तलब करने की याचना को आदेश दिनांक 18.07.2007 पारित कर स्वीकार किया और न्यायालय ने उक्त दोनो अभियुक्तगण के विरुद्ध गैर जमानतीय अधिपत्र जारी किया। उक्त आदेश के विरुद्ध श्याम नरायण सिंह ने माननीय उच्च न्यायालय खण्डपीठ लखनऊ में आपराधिक प्रकीर्ण वाद योजित किया। माननीय न्यायालय ने उक्त याचिका को स्वीकार कर गैर जमानतीय अधिपत्र जारी करने के आदेश दिनांक 18.07.2007 को अपास्त कर दिया। माननीय न्यायालय ने पी०डब्लू0-1 के बयान के पश्चात् अभियुक्त को धारा-319 द.प्र.सं. में तलब किये जाने हेतु पर्याप्त आधार नहीं माना।
3. विशेष अभियोजन अधिकारी सी०बी०सी०आई०डी० द्वारा यह भी बहस कि गई है कि प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में दो अहम साक्षीगण मृतक की माता और बहन को परीक्षित कराया गया है। दोनो ही साक्षी प्रस्तुत प्रकरण के महत्वपूर्ण साक्षी है। दिनांक 17.10.2024 को मृतक की मां शारदा देवी ने अपने बयान मुख्य परीक्षा में कहा कि "सुशील व उसके पिता श्याम नारायन सिंह और रामकुमार दास ने मिलकर मेरे लड़के प्रीति पाण्डेय की हत्या कर दी।" दिनांक 17.20.2024 को ही अभियोजन साक्षी मृतक की बहन ने अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा में यह कहा कि "रामकुमार दास के कहने पर उसके साथ मिलकर रामकुमार, सुशील और श्याम नारायन ने मिलकर मेरे भाई प्रीति की हत्या कर दी।" प्रार्थना पत्र 335 ब में अंत में यह कथन किया गया है कि श्याम नारायन सिंह के विरूद्ध पूर्व में ही आरोप पत्र मफरूरी में प्रेषित है। साथ ही पत्रावली में साक्ष्य भी वर्तमान में उपलब्ध है। अतः श्याम नारायन सिंह को तलब करके विचारण करने की प्रार्थना की गयी है।
4. उपरोक्त प्रार्थनापत्र पर अभियुक्त सुशील कुमार सिंह के अधिवक्ता द्वारा आपत्ति प्रस्तुत करते हुये कथन किया गया है कि प्रस्तुत मुकदमा गत लगभग 28 वर्षों से प्रार्थी व प्रार्थी के परिवार की घोर प्रताड़ना करता चला आ रहा है। अभियोजन द्वारा प्रस्तुत कुल 14 गवाहों में तथ्य के 6 गवाह अभियोजन पक्षद्रोही घोषित कर चुका है, जिन्होंने घटना को झूठा बताया। शेष औपचारिक साक्षियों ने घटना के संबंध में औपचारिक साक्ष्य देते हुये पंचायतनामा आदि अभियोजन अभिलेखों के संबंध में साक्ष्य दिया है। 12 साक्षियों को परीक्षित करने के उपरांत प्रकरण में दिनांक 13.04.2023 को धारा-313 के अंतर्गत बयान दर्ज हुए। अभियोजन ने निर्णय के स्तर पर धारा-311 के अंतर्गत प्रार्थनापत्र देकर दो साक्षियों मृतक की मां श्रीमती शारदा देवी व बहन श्रीमती सुचिता तिवारी को तलब करने का आवेदन पत्र दिया। श्रीमती शारदा देवी ने मुख्य परीक्षा में श्री श्याम नरायन सिंह के विरूद्ध कोई आरोप नहीं लगाया, जबकि जिरह में यह साक्षी श्याम नरायन सिंह का नाम तक नहीं बता सकी। अभियोजन प्रार्थनापत्र धारा-319 दं०प्र०सं० अति विलम्ब व अग्राह्य साक्ष्य, जिससे दोष दण्डित किया जाना संभव नहीं है, आधारों पर निरस्त करने की प्रार्थना की गयी है। यह भी आपत्ति की गई कि प्रस्तावित अभियुक्त श्याम नरायन को भी सुना जाना आवश्यक है।
5. सी.बी.सी.आई.डी. गोरखपुर के विशेष अभियोजन अधिकारी द्वारा अभियुक्त द्वारा प्रस्तुत आपत्ति पर प्रतिआपत्ति दाखिल करते हुये कथन किया गया कि अभियुक्त श्याम नारायन सिंह के विरूद्ध माननीय न्यायालय में मफरूरी में आरोप पत्र प्रेषित किया गया है। अभियुक्त श्याम नारायन सिंह के विरूद्ध मृतका की मां श्रीमती शारदा देवी तथा बहन सुचिता तिवारी द्वारा बयान दिया गया है। अतः उक्त दोनों गवाहों के बयानों के अवलोकन एवं अभियुक्त श्याम नारायन सिंह के विरूद्ध मफरूरी में आरोप पत्र दाखिल होने के कारण अभियुक्त का विचारण न्यायहित में आवश्यक है।
6. सुना तथा पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध समस्त प्रपत्रों का सम्यक अवलोकन किया गया।
7. पत्रावली के अवलोकन से विदित होता है कि प्रस्तुत प्रकरण की शुरुआत राम फेरन पाण्डेय द्वारा प्रभारी निरीक्षक थाना अयोध्या की दी गयी तहरीर से प्रारंभ- हुआ, जिसमें उसके द्वारा यह कहा गया कि उसका लड़का प्रीती कुमार पाण्डेय प्रातः 8:30 बजे दिनांक 23.06.1996 दिन रविवार को यह कहकर घर से गया कि वह स्नान के लिए जा रहा है, लेकिन वह श्यामनरायन सिंह के यहां बैठकर कृष्णा सीरियल देखने लगा। वहां पर उनका परिवार एवं रामकुमार दास भी मौजूद था, जो 15-20 मिनट बाद उठकर बाहर निकल गया। सीरियल समाप्त होने के बाद पुनः रामकुमार दास वहां पर वापस आये। इसके बाद उसका कोई पता नहीं चला। जिसकी गुमशुदगी की रिपोर्ट थाना अयोध्या में दिनांक 24.06.1996 प्रातः 10:30 बजे प्रार्थनापत्र के माध्यम से दिया। आज दिनांक 27.06.1996 को प्रीती कुमार पाण्डेय की लाश हनुमान गढ़ी बगिया के कुंआ में बोरे में बंधी हुई, जो कि अड़गढ़ा चौराहे के पास स्थित है। उसे राजकुमार दास और श्यामनरायन सिंह पर पूर्ण संदेह है कि उसके लड़के की हत्या में इन लोगों का हाथ है। उक्त तहरीर के आधार पर मुकदमा पंजीकृत किया गया तथा विवेचना की गयी। विवेचना उपरांत कुल 04 अभियुक्तगण का नाम प्रकाश में आया, जिनके नाम रामकुमार, सुशील कुमार सिंह, श्याम नरायन सिंह व हरि राम झा था। श्यामनरायन सिंह एवं हरि राम झा के विरूद्ध मफरूरी में आरोप पत्र अंतर्गत धारा 302, 201, 120बी भा०द०सं० प्रेषित किया गया। यह भी उल्लेखनीय है कि इस दौरान मामले में अग्रिम विवेचना सी०बी०सी०आई०डी० द्वारा भी की गयी। विशेष अभियोजन अधिकारी सी०बी०सी०आई०डी० द्वारा बहस में कहा गया कि अग्रिम विवेचना में कोई नवीन साक्ष्य प्राप्त नहीं हुये तथा थाना को० अयोध्या द्वारा पूर्व प्रेषित आरोप पत्र पर ही उनके द्वारा विश्वास जताया गया। चूंकि अभियुक्त श्याम नरायन सिंह एवं हरि राम झा दौरान विवेचना गिरफ्तार नहीं हो सके थे, इसलिए उनके विरूद्ध आरोप पत्र मफरूरी में दाखिल किया गया था। यह भी उल्लेखनीय है कि शासनादेश सं0-3018/छः-प्र०-14-96-60 (76)/96 के द्वारा प्रेषित पत्र के प्रकाश में अपराध शाखा अनुसंधान विभाग उ०प्र० शासन दिनांक 22.08.1996 (पुलिस) अनुभाग 14 के द्वारा मु०अ०सं०-1144/96 दिनांक 25.07.1996 गैंगेस्टर अधिनियम की धारा-3 (1) एवं मु०अ०सं०-999/1996 अंतर्गत धारा-302, 201, 120बी की अग्रिम विवेचना को एक साथ किये जाने हेतु निर्णय लिया गया। जिसके क्रम में सी०बी०सी०आई० गोरखपुर, द्वारा अग्रिम विवेचना भी की गयी। अग्रिम विवेचना में सी०बी०सी०आई० द्वारा थाना को० अयोध्या द्वारा मु०अ०सं०-999/1996, सरकार बनाम सुशील कुमार, धारा-302, 201, 120बी भा०द०सं० थाना-को० अयोध्या, जिला अयोध्या, के संबंध में प्रेषित आरोप पत्र का समर्थन किया गया तथा कोई नवीन आरोप भारतीय दण्ड संहिता के तहत नहीं बढ़ाया गया।
8. उल्लेखनीय होगा कि श्याम नरायन सिंह के विरूद्ध व अन्य सह अभियुक्तों के विरूद्ध प्रेषित आरोप पत्र में अभियुक्त श्याम नरायन सिंह पर थाना को०, अयोध्या, द्वारा यह आरोप लगाया गया कि उसने अपने पुत्र सुशील कुमार एवं अन्य सह अभियुक्त-रामकुमार दास, हरिराम के साथ मिलकर प्रीती कुमार पाण्डेय की हत्या कर दी थी। थाना को० अयोध्या के अनुसार हत्या में अभियुक्त रामकुमार दास का मुख्य भूमिका रही और उसी की निशानदेही पर आलाकत्ल तथा शव जिस बोरे में तथा जहां फेंका गया था, वहां से बरामद किया गया था। पत्रावली के परिशीलन से यह भी विदित होता है कि न्यायालय द्वारा आरोप पत्र पर संज्ञान लेने के उपरांत अभियुक्तगण रामकुमार दास एवं सुशील के विरूद्ध आरोप विरचित किया गया, क्योंकि अभियुक्त श्यामनरायन सिंह एवं हरिराम फरार थे। जब साक्षी पी०डब्लू०-1 का बयान दर्ज हुआ तो यह पता चला कि श्यामनरायन सिंह अमुक स्थान पर ही निवास कर रहा है और जानबूझकर हाजिर नहीं हो रहा है। तत्पश्चात न्यायालय द्वारा अभियोजन के द्वारा दिये गये प्रार्थनापत्र 49ब के प्रकाश में श्यामनरायन सिंह के विरूद्ध एन.बी.डब्लू, जारी कराने का आदेश दिनांकित 18.07.2000 पारित किया, जिसे श्यामनरायन ने माननीय न्यायालय में आपराधिक प्रकीर्ण वाद सं0-882/2000 श्यामनरायन सिंह बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य के माध्यम से चुनौती दी। ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि श्याम नरायन सिंह ने न्यायालय द्वारा एन०बी०डब्लू० जारी करने के आदेश को धारा-319 दं०प्र०सं० में तलबी आदेश के रूप में प्रकट करते हुये चुनौती दी।
9. उक्त के क्रम में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय ने अभियुक्त श्याम नारायण सिंह के विरूद्ध जरिये एन०बी०डब्लू० तलबी आदेश दिनांकित 18.07.2000 को आपस्त करदिया तथा यह भी उल्लिखित किया कि यदि भविष्य में अभियुक्त श्याम नारायण सिंह के विरूद्ध साक्ष्य पाये जाते है तो अभियोजन द्वारा चारा-319 द०प्र०सं० के दृष्टिगत प्रार्थनापत्र को पुनः प्रस्तुत किया जा सकता है और उस समय अभियुक्तगण के तलबी हेतु नवीन आदेश पारित किया जा सकता है। आपराधिक प्रकीर्ण वाद सं०-882/2000, श्याम नरायण सिंह बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य माननीय उच्च न्यायलय द्वारा यह आदेश पारित किया गया कि- "It is argued that the only averments in the FIR against the petitioner is that it appears the complainant has suspicion that the petitioner has committed the crime. However, the trial court has recorded the evidence of P.W.1 where in it has been stated that Shyam Narain petitioner had demanded rupees 5,000/ from the deceased, son of the complainant. It is further argued that it has not been connected with the crime that the demand was made for what count. The court may issue and summon or warrants at any stage of the case if there is sufficient evidence against any person. At present the order for summoning the accused is quashed but it shall not bar the court from re-summoning the accused under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. if there is sufficient evidence against him. In the light of the above, the petition deserves to be allowed.
The petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 18.07.2000 is set aside."
10- उल्लेखनीय है कि इस दौरान प्रत्येक तारीखों पर श्यामनरायन सिंह मुकदमे में हाजिर होता रहा और आदेश पत्र में दस्तख्त भी करता रहा। अभियोजन पक्ष द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में कुल 14 साक्षियों को परीक्षित कराया जा चुका है। माननीय उच्च न्यायालय ने अभियुक्त श्याम नारायण सिंह के विरूद्ध जरिये एन०बी०डब्लू० तलबी आदेश दिनांकित 18.07.2000 को दिनांक 24.03.2003 को आपस्त कर दिया गया था। उक्त आदेश के बाद वर्ष 2007 में अभियोजन साक्षी पी०डब्लू०-1 रामफेरन पाण्डेय द्वारा जिरह में कथन किया गया कि जब घर आया तो पत्नी ने कहा लडका दिन में 5-6 बार श्याम नरायन के घर आता जाता था, वहां भी पूछ लो। मैं वहां गया, अकेले गया। श्यामनरायन की पत्नी ने बताया कि पौने 9 बजे प्रीति पाण्डेय मेरे यहां आये थे। चाय वगैरह पीये। चाय पीते समय रामकुमार दास भी आ गया। उसने भी चाय पी। मैं इनके यहां 23.06.1996 को दोपहर के बाद गया था। समय याद नहीं है। पी०डब्लू०-5 विकास सिंह द्वारा अपने बयान में यह कथन किया कि थानाध्यक्ष रामजन्मभूमि मुझे और संजय आजाद को साथ लेकर अभियुक्त राम कुमार दास के कब्जे से एक गडासा हनुमत विजय कुंज के गौसाले के एक कोने में रखे गोबर के ढेर के अंदर से बरामद किया था। पी०डब्लू0-11 अमल कुमार मिश्रा द्वारा बयान दिया गया कि दिनांक 23.06.1996 को मैं सुबह प्रीती पाण्डेय से मिलने उसके घर गया था। वह वहां मिला था। मेरी उससे बात हुई थी। मैंने उससे शाम को मेरे घर आने को कहा, परंतु वह जब शाम को मेरे घर नहीं आया तो मैं उसके घर गया। उसकी माता जी ने बताया कि वह नहाने सरयू की तरफ गया है। रामकुमार दास के साथ गया है। उसके बाद वह श्यामनरायन सिंह के घर जायेगा, लेकिन वो अभी तक नहीं आया। जब मैं रात में श्याम नरायन सिंह के घर गया। वहां मेरी मुलाकात उनके घर के बाहर के रास्ते पर राम कुमार दास से हुई। मैं उनके साथ हनुमंत निवास तक आया। पी०डब्लू0-12 विजय शंकर मिश्रा द्वारा बयान दिया गया कि दिनांक 23.06.1996 को अमल मिश्रा के साथ प्रीति के घर गया था। रामकुमार दास को मैं पहले से नहीं जानता था। पहली बार रामकुमार को प्रीति के साथ दिनांक 23.01.1996 को हनुमत विजय कुंज के पास देखा था। अभियोजन साक्षी पी.डब्लू.-13 शारदा देवी तथा पी. डब्लू-14 सुचिता तिवारी के बयानों का अवलोकन किया गया, जिसमें पी०डब्लू०-13 शारदा देवी द्वारा अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा में यह कथन किया कि "रामकुमार दास मेरे लड़के से मनमुटाव रखता था और इसी बात को लेकर सुशील व उसके पिता श्याम नरायन सिंह और रामकुमार दास ने मिलकर मेरे लड़के प्रीती पाण्डेय की हत्या कर दी।" पी०डब्लू०-14 सुचिता तिवारी द्वारा अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा में कथन किया कि "रामकुमार, सुशील और श्याम नरायन ने मिलकर इतना बड़ा कदम उठाते हुये मेरे भाई प्रीती की हत्या कर दी।" अभियोजन पक्ष द्वारा कथन किया गया है कि अभियुक्त श्याम नारायन सिंह के विरूद्ध अभियोजन साक्षीगण द्वारा स्पष्ट बयान दिया गया है।
11. इसके अतिरिक्त फर्द बरामदगी दिनांकित 26.06.1996 में यह तथ्य अंकित किया गया है कि अभियुक्त रामकुमार द्वारा को० अयोध्या जिला फैजाबाद ने आगे-आगे चलकर घटना में प्रयुक्त गडासा, हनुमत विजयकुंज के गौशाला के आंगन में एक कोने में रखे गोबर के ढेर के अंदर से अपने आप फावड़े से गोबर हटाकर निकाल कर दिया। फर्द बरामदगी दिनांकित 27.06.1996 में मृतक प्रिति पाण्डेय का बोरे में शव बरामद किया गया। फर्द बरामदगी दिनांकित 28.06.1996 में यह तथ्य अंकित किया गया है कि अभियुक्त राम कुमार की निशादेही पर घटना के समय पहने कपड़ों को हनुमत विजय कुंज की छत पर जलाये गये कपड़ों के अवशेष व राख पुलिस संबंधित मु०अ०सं०-999/1996 धारा-302/201 भा.द.सं. किया गया, जिसे समक्ष गवाहान सर्व मोहर किया गया।
12. उक्त आधार पर अभियोजन द्वारा यह कहा गया कि अंतिम बार मृतक को अभियुक्त श्यामनरायन सिंह के घर देखा गया था और उन्हीं के घर पर से रामकुमार दास के साथ मृतक प्रीती पाण्डेय बाहर गया था, जो कभी लौटकर नहीं आया और बाद में उसी लाश बोरे में लिपटी कुएं से बरामद की गयी। उक्त के संबध में अभियोजन साक्षियों के बयान अंकित है। अतः अभियुक्त श्याम नरायन सिंह की भूमिका को प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में नजरअंदाज नहीं किया जा सकता। अर्थात् विचारण के लिए अभियुक्त श्यामनरायन सिंह के विरूद्ध पर्याप्त साक्ष्य मौजूद है।
13. अभियुक्त सुशील कुमार की ओर से यह बहस की गयी कि धारा-319 द.प्र. सं. के प्रार्थनापत्र पर विचार किये जाने हेतु प्रस्तावित अभियुक्त को सुना जाना आवश्यक है तथा अपने इस तर्क के समर्थन में उनके द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय की सम्मान्ति विधि व्यवस्था जोगेंद्र यादव बनाम बिहार राज्य (2015) 9 एस सी आर को प्रस्तुत किया गया। जहां तक अभियुक्त सुशील की ओर से यह बहस की गयी कि प्रस्तावित अभियुक्त को सुना जाना आवश्यक है, का प्रश्न है इस संबंध में उल्लेख करना आवश्यक होगा कि प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में श्याम नरायन सिंह लगातार इस मुकदमे में हाजिर होते रहे है तथा उन्हें इस मुकदमे की बखूबी जानकारी है तथा उनकी ओर से अद्यतन तक प्रस्तुत मामले में विभिन्न कार्यवाहियों के नकलें भी प्राप्त की जा रही हैं। अतः बावजूद मुकदमे की संपूर्ण जानकारी उनके द्वारा अभियोजन के प्रार्थनापत्र 335ब पर कोई आपत्ति प्रस्तुत नहीं की गयी हैं। ऐसे में यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि उन्हें सुनवाई का अवसर नहीं दिया गया। अतः मामले के तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सम्मानित निर्णय का कोई लाभ अभियुक्त श्यामनरायन सिंह को प्राप्त नहीं होता। इसके अतिरिक्त यहां यह भी उल्लेखनीय होगा कि प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा यह उल्लिखित कर दिया गया था कि यदि भविष्य में अभियुक्त श्यामनरायन सिंह के विरूद्ध कोई साक्ष्य पाया जाता है तो उसे धारा-319 द०प्र०सं० के दृष्टिगत तलब किया जा सकता है। प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में न सिर्फ संबंधित थाना को० अयोध्या द्वारा विवेचना के पश्चात् अभियुक्त श्यामनरायन सिंह के विरूद्ध पर्याप्त साक्ष्य पाये जाने पर आरोप पत्र भी प्रस्तुत किया गया था, बल्कि मृतक प्रीती कुमार पाण्डेय की माता एवं बहन द्वारा भी न्यायालय के समक्ष आकर अभियोजन कथानक का समर्थन करते हुये साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत किया गया है। धारा-319 द.प्र.सं. के प्रावधान में किसी भी व्यक्ति को तलब किये जाने हेतु यह आवश्यक नहीं है कि उसके विरूद्ध दिया गया साक्ष्य प्रत्येक दशा में अभियुक्त को दोषसिद्ध साबित करने के लिए पर्याप्त हो। धारा-319 द०प्र०सं० का प्रयोग उस दशा में भी किया जा सकता है यदि अभियुक्त के विरूद्ध विचारण हेतु पर्याप्त साक्ष्य पाये जाये।
14. प्रस्तुत प्रकरण के तथ्य एवं परिस्थिति सामान्य परिस्थिति से भिन्न है। प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में अभियुक्त श्यामनरायन सिंह के संबंध में न सिर्फ दोनों अभियोजन साक्षीगण द्वारा प्रीती कुमार पाण्डेय की हत्या में श्यामनरायन की भूमिका के संदर्भ में साक्ष्य दिया गया है, बल्कि श्याम नरायन के विरूद्ध पूर्व में पर्याप्त साक्ष्य के आधार पर आरोप पत्र दाखिल भी किया गया है, किंतु यह आरोप पत्र मफरूरी में दाखिल किया गया था और जब अभियुक्त का सही पता चला तो उसके विरूद्ध गैर जमानती अधिपत्र जारी किये जाने पर उसने गैर जमानती अधिपत्र जारी किये जाने के आदेश को चुनौती दी, जिस पर माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश दिनांकित 24. 03.2003 पारित किया गया। अतः अभियुक्त श्यामनरायन सिंह के विरूद्ध दोनों अभियोजन साक्षीगण के बयानों के अवलोकन एवं अभियुक्त श्याम नारायन सिंह के विरूद्ध मफरूरी में आरोप पत्र दाखिल होने के कारण अभियुक्त का विचारण न्यायहित में आवश्यक है।
15. उपरोक्त समस्त तथ्यों, परिस्थितियों, अभियोजन साक्षीगण के बयानों तथा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश के दृष्टिगत अभियुक्त श्याम नरायन सिंह के विरूद्ध अंतर्गत धारा-302, 201, 120बी भा०द०सं० में विचारण हेतु तलब किये जाने का आधार पर्याप्त है। अतः अभियुक्त श्याम नरायन सिंह को धारा-302, 201, 120बी भा०द०सं० में विचारण हेतु आहूत किया जाता है।
16. पत्रावली दिनांक 02.12.2024 को पेश हो। अभियुक्त श्यामनरायन सिंह तत् दिनांक को अग्रिम कार्यवाही हेतु उपस्थित हो।"
17. In the aforesaid background of the case, the instant application has been filed before this Court.
18. Learned counsel for the applicant impeaching the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 submitted that this Court earlier vide order dated 24.03.2003 interfered in the order dated 18.07.2000, which was passed on an application preferred by the prosecution numbered as 49-Ba and also observed that if there is sufficient evidence then the applicant can be re-summoned in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and in the instant case, a perusal of the statements of PW-13 and PW-14 would indicate that no offence is made out against the applicant, as such, interference of this Court is required in the order impugned dated 22.11.2024.
19. Opposing the instant application, Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned AGA submitted as under:-
(i) The applicant was charge-sheeted and he was not exonerated by the IO. Thus, in this view of the matter, it is apparent that sufficient material was available against the applicant.
(ii) If the accused is/was charge sheeted then there is/was no occasion for the trial court to summon the accused in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In this case, in fact, the accused-applicant was absconder and charge sheet was filed accordingly and therefore, necessity was only to issue Bailable or Non-bailable Warrant against him for the purpose of his appearance.
(iii) The accused-applicant has been summoned by the trial court after considering the entire facts including that he was charge sheeted, which is intact, and also the statement of witnesses of the prosecution according to which the accused-applicant was involved in the crime.
(iv) The involvement of the accused-applicant in the crime cannot be ruled out at this stage, as according to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the deceased, just prior to the incident, was found at the home of the accused-applicant.
20. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.
21. The law on the issue is well settled. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, Brijendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706, Rajesh and Others Vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368, Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2021) 18 SCC 321, Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289, Yashodhan Singh and Others Vs. State of U. P. and Others, (2023) LiveLaw (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652, the trial court while exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is under obligation to consider the evidence recorded before it during trial as also the evidence received by it after cognizance is taken and before commencement of trial.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) in para 78 observed that "the word "evidence" in Section 319 CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents. It is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or the court to decide whether the power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during the investigation". and thereafter in para 85 it has been observed that "in view of the discussion made and the conclusion drawn hereinabove, the answer to the aforesaid question posed is that apart from evidence recorded during trial, any material that has been received by the court after cognizance is taken and before the trial commences, can be utilised only for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the court to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC. The "evidence" is thus, limited to the evidence recorded during trial." and subsequently, in the case of Rajesh and Others (supra) in para 6.8 held that "Considering the law laid down by this Court in Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] and the observations and findings referred to and reproduced hereinabove, it emerges that (i) the Court can exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned and the Court need not wait till the cross-examination of such a witness and the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination; and (ii) a person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 CrPC, provided from the evidence (may be on the basis of the evidence collected in the form of statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned), it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial." and thereafter, in the case of Manjeet Singh (supra) observed as under:
"15. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions on the scope and ambit of the powers of the court under Section 319CrPC can be summarised as under:
15.1. That while exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC and to summon the persons not charge-sheeted, the entire effort is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence to get away unpunished.
15.2. For the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the criminal administration of justice works properly.
15.3. The law has been properly codified and modified by the legislature under CrPC indicating as to how the courts should proceed to ultimately find out the truth so that the innocent does not get punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to book under the law.
15.4. To discharge duty of the court to find out the real truth and to ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished.
15.5. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial.
15.6. Section 319CrPC allows the court to proceed against any person who is not an accused in a case before it.
15.7. The court is the sole repository of justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore, it will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such powers with the courts in our criminal justice system where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at times, get away by manipulating the investigating and/or the prosecuting agency.
15.8. Section 319CrPC is an enabling provision empowering the court to take appropriate steps for proceeding against any person not being an accused for also having committed the offence under trial.
15.9. The power under Section 319(1)CrPC can be exercised at any stage after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment, except during the stage of Sections 207/208CrPC, committal, etc. which is only a pre-trial stage intended to put the process into motion.
15.10. The court can exercise the power under Section 319CrPC only after the trial proceeds and commences with the recording of the evidence.
15.11. The word "evidence" in Section 319CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents.
15.12. It is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or the court to decide whether the power under Section 319CrPC is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during the investigation.
15.13. If the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief, it can exercise the power under Section 319CrPC and can proceed against such other person(s).
15.14. That if the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief, powers under Section 319CrPC can be exercised.
15.15. That power under Section 319CrPC can be exercised even at the stage of completion of examination-in-chief and the court need not to wait till the said evidence is tested on cross-examination.
15.16. Even in a case where the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, the court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319CrPC and even those persons named in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet can be summoned to face the trial, provided during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused (may be in the form of examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses).
15.17. While exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC the court is not required and/or justified in appreciating the deposition/evidence of the prosecution witnesses on merits which is required to be done during the trial.
16. Applying the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand we are of the opinion that the learned trial court as well as the High Court have materially erred in dismissing the application under Section 319CrPC and refusing to summon the private respondents herein to face the trial in exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC. It is required to be noted that in FIR No. 477 all the private respondents herein who are sought to be arraigned as additional accused were specifically named with specific role attributed to them. It is specifically mentioned that while they were returning back, Mahindra XUV bearing no. HR 40A 4352 was standing on the road which belongs to Sartaj Singh and Sukhpal. Tejpal, Parab Saran Singh, Preet Samrat and Sartaj were standing. Parab Sharan was having lathi in his hand, Tejpal was having a gandasi, Sukhpal was having a danda, Sartaj was having a revolver and Preet Singh was sitting in the jeep. It is specifically mentioned in the FIR that all the aforesaid persons with common intention parked the Mahindra XUV HR 40A 4352 in a manner which blocks the entire road and they were armed with the weapons.
17. Despite the above specific allegations, when the charge-sheet/final report came to be filed only two persons came to be charge-sheeted and the private respondents herein, though named in the FIR, were put/kept in Column 2. It is the case on behalf of the private respondents herein that four different DSPs inquired into the matter and thereafter when no evidence was found against them the private respondents herein were put in Column 2 and therefore the same is to be given much weightage rather than considering/believing the examination-in-chief of the appellant herein. Heavy reliance is placed on Brijendra Singh [Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 144] .
18. However none of DSPs and/or their reports, if any, are part of the charge-sheet. None of the DSPs are shown as witnesses. None of the DSPs are investigating officer. Even on considering the final report/charge-sheet as a whole there does not appear to be any consideration on the specific allegations qua the accused, the private respondents herein, who are kept in Column 2. Entire discussion in the charge-sheet/final report is against Sartaj Singh only.
19. So far as the private respondents are concerned only thing which is stated is:"During the investigation of the present case, Shri Baljinder Singh, HPS, DSP Assandh and Shri Kushalpal, HPS, DSP Indri found accused Tejpal Singh, Sukhpal Singh, sons of Gurdev Singh, Parab Sharan Singh and Preet Samrat Singh sons of Mohan Sarup Singh caste Jat Sikh, residents of Bandrala innocent and accordingly Sections 148, 149 and 341IPC were deleted in the case and they were kept in Column 2, whereas challan against accused Sartaj has been presented in the Court."
20. Now thereafter when in the examination-in-chief the appellant herein -- victim -- injured eyewitness has specifically named the private respondents herein with specific role attributed to them, the learned trial court as well as the High Court ought to have summoned the private respondents herein to face the trial. At this stage it is required to be noted that so far as the appellant herein is concerned he is an injured eyewitness. As observed by this Court in State of M.P. v. Mansingh [State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 390] (para 9); Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] ; State of U.P. v. Naresh [State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 216] , the evidence of an injured eyewitness has greater evidential value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. As observed hereinabove while exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC the court has not to wait till the cross-examination and on the basis of the examination-in-chief of a witness if a case is made out, a person can be summoned to face the trial under Section 319CrPC.
21. Now so far as the reasoning given by the High Court while dismissing the revision application and confirming the order passed by the learned trial court dismissing the application under Section 319CrPC is concerned, the High Court itself has observed that PW 1 Manjeet Singh is the injured witness and therefore his presence cannot be doubted as he has received firearm injuries along with the deceased. However, thereafter the High Court has observed that the statement of Manjeet Singh indicates over implication and that no injury has been attributed to either of the respondents except that they were armed with weapons and the injuries concerned are attributed only to Sartaj Singh, even for the sake of arguments if someone was present with Sartaj Singh it cannot be said that they had any common intention or there was meeting of mind or knew that Sartaj would be firing. The aforesaid reasonings are not sustainable at all.
22. At the stage of exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC, the court is not required to appreciate and/or enter on the merits of the allegations of the case. The High Court has lost sight of the fact that the allegations against all the accused persons right from the very beginning were for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 341, 148 & 149IPC. The High Court has failed to appreciate the fact that for attracting the offence under Section 149IPC only forming part of unlawful assembly is sufficient and the individual role and/or overt act is immaterial. Therefore, the reasoning given by the High Court that no injury has been attributed to either of the respondents except that they were armed with weapons and therefore, they cannot be added as accused is unsustainable. The learned trial court and the High Court have failed to exercise the jurisdiction and/or powers while exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC.
23. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the private respondents that though a common judgment and order was passed by the High Court in Satkar Singh v. State of Haryana [ CRR No. 3238 of 2018 reported as Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2782 sub nom Satkar Singh v. State of Haryana] at that stage the appellant herein did not prefer appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana [Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2782 [Ed. : This also disposed of CRR No. 3238 of 2018 by a common judgment and order]] and therefore this Court may not exercise the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution is concerned the aforesaid has no substance. Once it is found that the learned trial court as well as the High Court ought to have summoned the private respondents herein as additional accused, belated filing of the appeal or not filing the appeal at a relevant time when this Court considered the very judgment and order in Satkar Singh v. State of Haryana [ CRR No. 3238 of 2018 reported as Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2782 sub nom Satkar Singh v. State of Haryana] cannot be a ground not to direct to summon the private respondents herein when this Court has found that a prima facie case is made out against the private respondents herein and they are to be summoned to face the trial.
24. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the private respondents that though in the charge-sheet the private respondents herein were put in Column 2 at that stage the complainant side did not file any protest application is concerned, the same has been specifically dealt with by this Court in Rajesh [Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 801] . This Court in the aforesaid decision has specifically observed that even in a case where the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well as who were named in the FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, the court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319CrPC.
25. Similarly, the submission on behalf of the private respondents herein that after the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court there is much progress in the trial and therefore at this stage power under Section 319CrPC may not be exercised is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance and cannot be accepted. As per the settled proposition of law and as observed by this Court in Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] , the powers under Section 319CrPC can be exercised at any stage before the final conclusion of the trial. Even otherwise it is required to be noted that at the time when the application under Section 319CrPC was given only one witness was examined and examination-in-chief of PW 1 was recorded and while the cross-examination of PW 1 was going on, application under Section 319CrPC was given which came to be rejected by the learned trial court. The order passed by the learned trial court is held to be unsustainable. If the learned trial court would have summoned the private respondents herein at that stage such a situation would not have arisen. Be that as it may, as observed herein powers under Section 319CrPC can be exercised at any stage from commencing of the trial and recording of evidence/deposition and before the conclusion of the trial at any stage.
26. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2782 [Ed. : This also disposed of CRR No. 3238 of 2018 by a common judgment and order]] passed by the High Court and that of the learned trial court dismissing the application under Section 319CrPC submitted on behalf of the complainant to summon the private respondents herein as additional accused are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. Consequently the application submitted on behalf of the complainant to summon the private respondents herein is hereby allowed and the learned trial court is directed to summon the private respondents herein to face the trial arising out of FIR No. 477 dated 27-7-2016 in Sessions Case No. 362 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 148 & 149IPC."
23. In the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289, the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded as under:-
"38. For all the reasons stated above, we answer the questions referred as hereunder.
39.(I) Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order?
The power under Section 319CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable.
40.(II) Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing/pending, having been bifurcated from the main trial?
The trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split-up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion.
41.(III) What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power under Section 319CrPC?
41.1. If the competent court finds evidence or if application under Section 319CrPC is filed regarding involvement of any other person in committing the offence based on evidence recorded at any stage in the trial before passing of the order on acquittal or sentence, it shall pause the trial at that stage.
41.2. The court shall thereupon first decide the need or otherwise to summon the additional accused and pass orders thereon.
41.3. If the decision of the court is to exercise the power under Section 319CrPC and summon the accused, such summoning order shall be passed before proceeding further with the trial in the main case.
41.4. If the summoning order of additional accused is passed, depending on the stage at which it is passed, the court shall also apply its mind to the fact as to whether such summoned accused is to be tried along with the other accused or separately.
41.5. If the decision is for joint trial, the fresh trial shall be commenced only after securing the presence of the summoned accused.
41.6. If the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried separately, on such order being made, there will be no impediment for the court to continue and conclude the trial against the accused who were being proceeded with.
41.7. If the proceeding paused as in para 41.1 above, is in a case where the accused who were tried are to be acquitted, and the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried afresh separately, there will be no impediment to pass the judgment of acquittal in the main case.
41.8. If the power is not invoked or exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is a split-up (bifurcated) case, the power under Section 319CrPC can be invoked or exercised only if there is evidence to that effect, pointing to the involvement of the additional accused to be summoned in the split-up (bifurcated) trial.
41.9. If, after arguments are heard and the case is reserved for judgment the occasion arises for the Court to invoke and exercise the power under Section 319CrPC, the appropriate course for the court is to set it down for re-hearing.
41.10. On setting it down for re-hearing, the above laid down procedure to decide about summoning; holding of joint trial or otherwise shall be decided and proceeded with accordingly.
41.11. Even in such a case, at that stage, if the decision is to summon additional accused and hold a joint trial the trial shall be conducted afresh and de novo proceedings be held.
41.12. If, in that circumstance, the decision is to hold a separate trial in case of the summoned accused as indicated earlier:
(a) The main case may be decided by pronouncing the conviction and sentence and then proceed afresh against summoned accused.
(b) In the case of acquittal the order shall be passed to that effect in the main case and then proceed afresh against summoned accused."
24. Further, in the case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (2025) 2 SCC 621, the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded as under:-
"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 add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the charge-sheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge-sheet 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 charge-sheet 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 charge-sheet, 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 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."
25. From the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment(s), referred above, it is evident that in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (i) A person not named in the charge sheet can be summoned as an accused at any stage of trial, if based upon the evidence available on record, the trial court finds that he should be summoned as an accused, (ii) The word "evidence" in Section 319 Cr.P.C. means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents, (iii) For the purpose of summoning a person as an accused in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the trial court is required to record satisfaction and (iv) While exercising the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the court is not required and/or justified in appreciating the deposition/evidence of the prosecution witnesses on merits which is required to be done during the trial.
26. Upon due consideration of the facts of the instant case, indicated above, and law on the issue, as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court finds no force in the instant application and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. It is for the following reasons:-
(i) The applicant was charge-sheeted and he was not exonerated by the IO. Thus, in this view of the matter, it is apparent that sufficient material was available against the applicant.
(ii) In this case, in fact, the applicant was an absconder and charge sheet was filed accordingly and therefore, necessity was only to issue Bailable or Non-bailable Warrant against him for the purpose of his appearance.
(iii) The applicant has been summoned by the trial court after considering the entire facts of the case and evidence available on record including that (a) the name of the applicant finds place in charge sheet, which is intact, and (b) the statement of witnesses of fact namely Sharda Devi (PW-13) and Suchita Tiwari (PW-14) produced by the prosecution, according to whom, the applicant was involved in the crime.
(iv) For the purposes of summoning the applicant as an accused, the trial court recorded its satisfaction after considering the entire facts of the case and evidence available on record.
(v) At this stage, the trial court is not under obligation to appreciate the deposition/evidence of the prosecution witnesses on merits which is required to be done during trial.
(vi) The involvement of the applicant in the crime cannot be ruled out at this stage, as according to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the deceased, just prior to the incident, was found at the house of the applicant.
Order Date :- 25.04.2025/Arun/-