LexRAM PAL SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 291 RAM PAL SINGH & ORS. v STATE OF U.P. & ANR. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 297 OF 2009 FEBRUARY 13, 2009 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ,] 291 A Code of Criminal Prooedwe, 1£173 - s 31£1 - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of of- fence -Appellant named in FIR but not as accused in charge- sheet during trial - Eye-witness to the incident named appel- C /ants as persons Involved in incident causing death of de- ceased - Application to summon appellants - Rejected by trial court - However, allowed by High Court directing sum- moning of appellants for trial along with co-accused in view of evidence of prosecution witness during trial itself - Justifica- D tion of- Held: Justified. The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether High Court was justified in directing the appellant to be summoned for trial along with the co- accused In view of the evidence of the prosecution wit.. E ness during the trial Itself. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1 The Ingredients of s. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are unambiguous and indicate F that where in the cour$e of Inquiry into, or trial of, an of- fence, It appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence, for which such person could be tried together with the accu$ed, the Court may proceed against s.uch person for the of- G fence he has committed. All that is required by th~ Court for invoking Its powers under s 319 Cr.P,C, is to be satis- fied that from the evidence adduced before it, a person 291 H 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A against whom no charge had been framed, but whose complicity appears to be clear, should be tried together with the accused. It is also clear that the discretion is left to the Court to take a decision on the matter. [Paras .15 and 16] [297-E, F, G] B 2. In the instant case, although, the appellants were named in the F.l.R., they were not named as accused in the charge-sheet during the trial. However, P.W.1 in his evidence named the appellants as persons who were in- volved in the incident causing the death of deceased and C injuries to MS, Despite that the trial court, on two sepa- rate occasions, rejected the prayer made by the respon- dent No.2 for summoning the appellants under section 319 Cr.P.C. High Court after considering the evidence of P.W.1, thought it necessary for the appellants to be sum- moned. Although, certain other observations made by the High Court regarding the orders passed by the trial court could and should have been avoided, the High Court did not commit any error in directing that the appellants be summoned to stand trial along with the co-accused, in view of the evidence of P.W.1 during the trial itself. The direction given by the High Court for summoning the ap- pellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C are upheld and order Qf High Court does not call for Interference. [Paras 15, 17, 18 and 19] [297-E, F, G; 298-A, B, C, D] Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq (2007) 5 SCALE 611 - re- ferred to, Case Law Reference (2007) 5 SCALE 611 Referred to. Para 8 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 2009 From the final Judgement and Order dated 5.10.2007 of th@ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 549 of 2007 ~. I ' - RAM PAL SINGH & ORS. V STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 293 V.J. Francis, Arun K. Singh, Anupam Mishra and Sushi! A ~ ·• Balwada, for the Appellant. Pramod Swarup, S.A.A. Abadi, Vandana Mishra, G. Venkateswara and Satpal Singh, for the Respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by B ALTAMAS KABIR, J., 1. Leave granted. 2. In respect of an incident which took place on 1st Octo- ber, 2006, in the day time at about 1.00 p.m., Kamlesh Singh c (PW.1) lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur, U.P., alleging that while his younger brother, Brijesh Kumar Singh alias Bablu Singh along with his brother-in-law Manvender Singh, was going on foot towards Mani Chauraha through Gupta Colony at Sitapur, U.P., the ac- D "'! cused persons, in a planned manner with common intention, -.c attacked the deceased and Manvender Singh. On account of such assault, Brijesh Kumar Singh died on the spot and Manvender Singh also sustained injuries. On completion of in- vestigation, the Investigating Officer filed a challan against the accused persons
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.