Ashok Singh Alias Ashok Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

[ 2025:JHHC:15151]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 473 of 2024

Ashok Singh @ Ashok Kumar Singh, Aged about 29 Years, S/o Shukar Singh, Resident of village - Bhondo, Bharatpur, P.O. & P.S. Chandwara, Dist.- Koderma ...... Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand 2. Kouleshwar Saw Aged about 37 Years S/o - Rameshwar Saw, Resident of village - Chourahi, P.O. & P.S.Chandwara, District - Koderma

¶5

….. Opposite Parties

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren , Adv.

¶7

Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra , Adv. Ms. Preeti Hembrom , Adv.

¶8

For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. PP Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl. PP

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶12

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with a prayer for quashing the common order dated 23.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Koderma in connection with S.T. Nos. 122 of 2017 , 19 of 2018 and 77 of 2019, and arrayed the petitioner as an accused of the case under Section 319 of CrPC.

¶13

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was an accused of Chandwara P.S. case no. 25 of 2017 involving the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 149, 323, 379, 302, 34 of the IPC. The petitioner was not sent up for trial by the police after investigation of the case, as he was found to be innocent but police submitted charge sheet against the co-accused persons, who faced the trial. During the trial, most of the prosecution

¶14

1

¶15

Cr.M.P. No. 473 of 2024

¶16

[ 2025:JHHC:15151]

¶17

witnesses consistently stated about the involvement and presence of the petitioner, at the place of occurrence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Koderma keeping in view the evidence on record, regarding the involvement of the petitioner, particularly, the evidence of PW 5 and 6 namely Badri Sao and Arjun Sao, who have categorically stated that the petitioner was assaulting the deceased, along with others, resulting in the death of the deceased - Rameshwar Sao; formed an opinion that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 325, 302 of IPC and directed for issuance of summons to the petitioner.

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, even in the deposition of PW5 and 6, made in S.T. No. 122 of 2017. It is next submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was in a marriage programme at the time of occurrence. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shankar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 730, para 16 of which reads as under :-

¶19

“ 16 The degree of satisfaction required to exercise power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. is well settled after the above-referred decision. The evidence before the trial court should be such that if it goes unrebutted, then it should result in the conviction of the person who is sought to be summoned. As is evident from the above-referred decision, the degree of satisfaction that is required to exercise power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. Only when the evidence is strong and reliable, can the power be exercised. It requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶20

submits that the degree of satisfaction that is required to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power and even though the evidence is not strong and reliable, still learned Additional Sessions Judge I, has committed a grave illegality by exercising the power under Section 319 of CrPC, by arraying the petitioner as an accused. Hence, it is submitted that

¶21

2

¶22

Cr.M.P. No. 473 of 2024

¶23

[ 2025:JHHC:15151]

¶24

the prayer as prayed for in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed.

¶25

Learned Spl. P.P appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that PW 5 and 6 have categorically stated that the petitioner assaulted the deceased along with the co-accused persons, which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased and if this part of evidence if remains unrebutted, the same is sufficient in securing the conviction of the petitioner. It is next submitted that beside the PW5 and 6, other prosecution witnesses examined in this case, have also stated directly about the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged offences. It is next submitted that as on the basis of this self-same evidence, undisputedly, the coaccused persons, have already been convicted inter alia for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Thus the evidence is both strong and reliable. It is then submitted that no illegality has been committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in arraying the petitioner as an accused, in exercise of the power under Section 319 of the CrPC. In support of his contention, learned Special PP relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in

¶26

(2025) 2 SCC 621, para 19 of which reads as under :-

¶27

‘’19. The principles of law as regards Section 319 CrPC may be summarised as under:

¶28

19.1. On a careful reading of Section 319 CrPC 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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

3

¶32

Cr.M.P. No. 473 of 2024

¶33

[ 2025:JHHC:15151]

¶34

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 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.

¶35

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.’’

¶36

It is lastly submitted by learned Special PP that as the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, I, Koderma do not suffer from any illegality, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶37

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that perusal of the record reveals that PW 5 and 6 of S.T. case no. 122 of 2017, have categorically stated about the petitioner along with the co-accused persons, having assaulted the deceased, which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased - Rameshwar Saw. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the evidence which came during trial, through PW5 and 6 , as well as other witnesses examined in this case by the prosecution, if goes unrebutted, then it should result in conviction of the petitioner.

¶38

Therefore, this Court, do not find any illegality in the common order dated 23.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Koderma in connection with S.T. Nos. 122 of 2017 , 19 of 2018 and 77 of 2019, by which, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused of the case; in exercise of power under Section 319 of CrPC and has issued summon to him.

¶39

4

¶40

Cr.M.P. No. 473 of 2024

¶41

[ 2025:JHHC:15151]

¶42