LexKAILASH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 702
A
KAI LASH
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2008)
8
MARCH 3, 2008
(S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.)
..
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
•
c
s.319 - Application to proceed against 'other person' as
an accused - Rejected by trial court - Revision before High
Court - Meanwhile five of accused again$t whom trial was
going on, acquitted of all charges ....; Remaining three found
guilty only uls 323 !PC and given benefit of s.4 of Parole Act-
High Court directing trial court to re-hear application uls 319-
D Held: Trial court had properly considered the evidence and
concluded that there was no possibility of convicting the said
'other person' - High Court merely relied on reported decision
- It should have examined independently as to whether there
was evidence not only to connect said 'other person' with the
E crime but it was sufficient to satisfy the requirement, "it appears
that such person has committed. the crime" - No such effort
was made by High Court - Judgment of High Court set aside.
Words and Phrases:
• •
F
Expressions "it appears from the evidence", "any person",
"has committed any offence" - Occurring in s.319 Cr.PC. -
Connotation of
An FIR was lodged against several persons including
the appellant for offences punishable u/ss.147, 148, 341,
G 452, 24/149, 323, 324/149 and 308/149 IPC. However, the
appellant was not arraigned in the charge-sheet. During
the course of the trial, the complainant filed an application
,~
u/s 319 Cr.P.C. stating that in view of the evidence and the
material on record, the appellant was required to be joined
H
702
KAI LASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
703
•
>
as an accused in the case. The trial court rejected the A
application holding that there was nothing in the FIR or in
the evidence on record to connect the appellant with the
crime and t~at the witnesses made improvement in their
evidence. The complainant filed a revision petition before
the H.igh Court. During the pendency of the revision, the B
trial court acquitted five of the accused of all the charges.
¥
It, however, found the remaining three accused guilty u/s
•
323 IPC but gave them the benefit of s.4 of the Parole Act.
The instant appeal: was filed against the order of the High
·1
Court directing the trial court to re-hear 'the application
filed under s.319 IPC.
c
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 319 Cr.P.C. indicates that during
the trial it has to appear from the evidence that a person not D
being an accused has committed any offence for which
such person- could be tried together with the accused who
are also being tried. The key words in the section are "it
appears from the evidence" ... "any person" ... "has
committed any offence". It is not, therefore, that merely
because some witnesses have mentioned the name of E
such person or that there is some material against that
person, the discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would
be used by the court. This is apart from the fact that the
• •
person against whom such discretion is used, should be
one who could be tried together with the a~cused against F
whom the trial is already going on. [Para 9] [708-F-H;
709-A]
1.2 This CouH: has, time and again, emphasized that
the discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be
exercised very sp~ringly and with caution and only when G
the .court is satisfied that some offence has been
~~
committed by such person. This power has to be
essentially exercised only on the basis of the evidence. It
could, therefore, be used only when it appears from the
evidence on record that the said person has committed H
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2008] 3 S.C.R.
• •
A an offence. The words "it appears" are not to be read
lightly. In that the court would have to be circumspect
while exercising this power and would have to apply the
caution which the language of the section demands.
[Para 9) {709-A, B, CJ
B
Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq & Anr. JT 2007 (5) SC 562;
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Krishan Rohtagi &
'"
Ors.(1983) 1 SCC 1; Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka (2004)
~
7 SCC 792 and Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2000) 3 SCC 262 - relied on.
c
1.3 In the instant case, the trial court properly
considered the evidence of injured witnesses and found
that none of them had stated that the appellant ha,d an
axe in his hand and that he caused any injury to PW 1 Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.