RAM SINGH & ORS. versus RAM NIWAS & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 878 · Decided: 13-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 8 S.C.R. 878 
' { 
A 
RAM SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
RAM NIWAS & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1014 of 2009) 
B 
MAY 13, 200;.' 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
c 
Section 319 - Power to proceed against other persons 
appearing to be guilty of offence - Scope and applicability 
of. 
The question involved in the appeal relates to the 
scope and application of Section 319 Cr.P.C. 
~ 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court, however, has committed 
a serious error in proceeding on the premise that mere 
E existence of a prima facie case would be sufficient to 
exercise the court's jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 
It is necessary for the court to arrive at a satisfaction that 
-/ 
the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, if 
~. 
unrebutted, would lead to conviction of the persons 
,, 
F sought to be added as accused in the case. [Para 17) 
[887-F-H] 
1.2. The High Court furthermore committed a serious 
error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that 
wheri the order dated 29th May 2003 was passed, the 
G Judge was in a position to consider the evidence brought 
on record including the cross-examination of the 
l 
prosecution witnesses. The High Court did not arrive at 
any finding that a case has been made out for exercise 
of such an extraordinary jurisdiction which, is required 
H 
878 
"J 
RAM SINGH & ORS. v. RAM NIWAS & ANR. 
879 
I 
to be exercised very sparingly. (Para 18] (888-A-B] 
A 
Kai/ash v. State of Rajasthan 2008(3) SCALE 338; Raj 
Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar & Anr. (1996) 4 SCC 495; 
Rakesh & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2001) 6 SCC 248; 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors. 
B 
(1983) 1 SCC 1; Joginder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & 
i 
Anr. (1979) 1 SCC 345; Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh & Anr. 
(2006) 10 SCC 192; Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh 
& Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 738; Michael Machado & Anr. v. 
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2000) 3 SCC 262; c 
Palanisamy Gounder & Anr. v. State represented by Inspector 
of Police (2005) 12 SCC 327; Kai/ash Dwivedi v. State of M.P. 
& Anr. (2005) 11 SCC 182 and Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq 
& Anr. 2007(5) SCALE 611, referred to . 
..., 
Case Law Reference : 
D 
-<t 
" 
2008(3) SCALE 338 
referred to 
Para 13 
(1996) 4 sec 495 
referred to 
Para 14 
(2001) 6 sec 248 
referred to 
Para 15 
E 
(1983) 1 sec 1 
referred to 
Para 16 
• 
(1979) 1 sec 345 
referred to 
Para 16 
~ 
(2006) 1 o sec 192 
referred to 
Para 16 
(2002) 5 sec 738 
referred to 
Para 16 
F 
(2000) 3 sec 262 
referred to 
Para 16 
2005) 12 sec 321 
referred to 
Para 16 
(2005) 11 sec 182 
referred to 
Para 16 
G 
.. 
~, 
2007(5) SCALE 611 
referred to 
Para 16 
< 
1 
l 
H 
.. 
880 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 8 S.G.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
• \" 
No. 1014 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.11.2005 of the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. 
B Criminal Misc. Petition No. 758 of 2003. 
Dr. Sushi! Balwada, Satbir Pillania, Sushi! Kumar Jain, 
+ 
Puneet Jain, Pratibha Jain, Naveen Singh and Aruneshwar 
Gupta appearing for the parties. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Scope and application of Section 319 of the Code of 
D Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') is in question 
r 
in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 
16th November 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the 
High Court of Rajasthan whereby and whereunder the order 
dated 29th May 2003 passed by the learned Upper District & 
E Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar, refusing to summon the 
appellants herein as accused, was set aside. 
3. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the 1st 
1 
respondent alleging that his wife was attacked by nine persons 
.. 
F including the five appellants herein. His mother was also 
assaulted. When his father rushed to their rescue, he was also 
surrounded by them and was assaulted as a result whereof, he 
expired. Upon investigation, a final form was submitted in favour 
of the appellants. A charge-sheet was filed only against four 
G persons, viz., Kishori, Jagdish, Sarjit and Sheo. 
4. Indisputably, a counter case had been filed. 
" 
5. An application was filed on or about 01st April 1998 in 
H 
terms of Section 319 of the Code for summoning the appellants 
-, 
RAM SINGH & ORS. v. RAM NIWAS & ANR. 
881 
[S.B. SINHA, J.] 
/ 
her

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.