Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: s.319 in Sant Kumar Dube vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2018Matching Fragments
Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
1. Revisional powers of this Court u/S 397 read with Sec 401 Cr.P.C. are invoked assailing the order dated 10.08.2017 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura Distt. Morena in S.T. No. 15/2017 of the trial Court allowing an application u/S 319 Cr.P.C. preferred by the prosecution directing arraying of four petitioners herein as accused on the basis of the testimony of PW1 - Rahul Tiwari (brother of the deceased) and the statement of witnesses recorded during inquest Exhibit P-1.
3.3 From the above, it is crystal clear that the Court has to first come to the conclusion that the evidence available in the trial(oral or documentary) is of such nature which reflects complicity of the person sought to be arrayed as accused of such probative value which ought to be more than what is required for framing of charge. Meaning thereby that the quality of testimony necessary for invocation of Sec 319 Cr.P.C. should disclose more than strong suspicion of involvement of the proposed accused. Once this satisfaction THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Sant Kumar Dubey & Others Vs. The State of M.P. & Another) is arrived at by the trial Court, thereafter assistance for the purpose of corroboration, if necessary can be sought from the material/evidence which has come on record during the period between taking of cognizance and commencement of trial. In other words, if the evidence or material collected during the trial does not show a case of more than strong suspicion against the proposed accused of being involved in the crime alleged then the trial Court cannot travel any further and has to decline interference u/S 319 Cr.P.C. without seeking any assistance for corroboration from any other material/evidence which was brought on record during the period between investigation and commencement of trial.
6. A bare perusal of the decision of Division Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Brijendra Singh reveals that though earlier decision of Hardeep Singh was considered, however, the scope, ambit and sweep of the expression "evidence" contained in Section 319 laid down in para 85 of the judgment of Hardeep Singh was not considered by the Apex Court in the case of Brijendra Singh.
9. In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the expression "evidence" found in Sec. 319 Cr.P.C is to be understood to mean the evidence collected during the trial in shape of oral and documentary evidence. However, the other evidence which has come on record between the stage of taking cognizance by the Court till the commencement of the trial can merely be used for corroborative purposes as laid down by the Apex Court in five Judge Bench decision in the case of Hardeep Singh. In other words,an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is maintainable only when implicative evidence of probative value more than strong suspicion comes on record in shape of documentary or oral evidence in trial. While considering such application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. the trial court can take assistance, for corroboration only, of any evidence which is already on record introduced between the stage of taking cognizance and the stage of commencement of trial. However, the trial court is not empowered to invoke Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. merely based on evidence which is part of investigation stage unless the same is already brought on record between the period of taking cognizance and before the trial begins.
9. In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the learned trial Judge has committed a jurisdictional error in allowing the application u/S 319 Cr.P.C. preferred by the prosecution.
10. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.08.2017 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura Distt. Morena in S.T. No. 15/2017, so far as it allows the application u/S 319 Cr.P.C. dated 13.07.2017 preferred by Ram Kumar THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Sant Kumar Dubey & Others Vs. The State of M.P. & Another) Tiwari and Rahul (the father and brother of the deceased respectively), is set aside.