Dismissed

Dilip and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC7 Dec 2017CRLR/1082/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged the Trial Court's order summoning petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. The High Court upheld the order, noting sufficient material from the prosecutrix's statement before the Magistrate and testimony during trial, dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed; the order summoning petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC was upheld.

Dilip and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1082 / 2016

¶3

Dilip S/o Shri Bakhtawar, R/o, Village Sanchod, Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶4

Ramu S/o Shri Deenaram, R/o Village Sanchod, Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶5

Satveer S/o Shri Rajendra R/o Village Sanchod, Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶6

Ramkishan @ Chhajju S/o Shri Ramphal, R/o Village Sanchod, Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶7

Satish S/o Shri Kailash, R/o. Village Sanchod, Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶8

Preeti D/o. Shri Hukam Singh, R/o Village Sanchod, Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

¶12

Chhangaram S/o Shri Sheonarayan Gurjar, Village Sanchod, Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohammed Anees Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Godara, P.P.

¶15

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment

¶16

07/12/2017

¶17

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 15.06.2016 whereby application moved by the

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[CRLR-1082/2016]

¶20

prosecution under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for summoning the petitioners as additional accused was allowed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and thereafter, her supplementary statement was recorded by the police wherein, she had not named the petitioners nor had levelled any allegations against them. Names of the petitioners were mentioned by the prosecutrix in her statement for the first time before the Magistrate under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶22

Learned State cousnel on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

¶23

Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as

¶24

under:-

¶25

"319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.

¶26

Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

¶27

Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

¶28

Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

¶29

Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then-

¶30

(3 of 4)

¶31

[CRLR-1082/2016]

¶32

(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses re- heard;

¶33

(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.

¶34

Thus, as per the above provision, the Court has ample power

¶35

to summon a person as an additional accused, if there is sufficient material that the said person, not being accused, has committed the offence and was liable to be tried with the accused facing trial.

¶36

After investigation of the case, challan was presented against accused Kala. During the pendency of the trial, prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for summoning the petitioner to face the trial as additional accused. Vide the impugned order, the said application was allowed by the Trial Court. Although, prosecutrix had not named the petitioners in her statement recorded by the police, but in her statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, she had specifically alleged that she had been raped by the petitioners and their co-accused. While appearing in the witness box during trial, prosecutrix who is aged about 14 years, has alleged that the petitioners and their coaccused Sher Singh @ Kala had taken her out of the village in a Bolero vehicle and had raped her. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Trial Court rightly ordered the summoning of the petitioners to face the trial as additional accused.

Dismissed.

(4 of 4)

[CRLR-1082/2016]

However, anything observed above, will have no bearing on

¶41

the merits of the case at the time of decision of the trial.

¶42

(SABINA)J.

¶43

S.Kumawat/D-97

Dilip and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Mona Chandani Vs Ramdhan

Sanjay Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Mustak and Others Vs Manzoor and Others

State of Rajasthan Vs Surajkaran

Narendra Nagar and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mahesh Chand Agrawal Vs Sanjay Malhotra and Ors.