Date of Order:
28th July 2023
Bench:
Justice [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
Justice [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
Parties:
SANDEEP KUMAR
…APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
SUBJECT
- In Sessions Trial No. 8/2018, before the Additional Sessions Judge in Sirsa, Haryana, and conducted in accordance with Sections 460, and 458 of the Penal Code, the appellant before this Court served as the case's informant and was a prosecution witness (PW-9).
- The SC held that the high court did not recognize the accused’s charges under IPC sections. The court needs to determine if a prima facie case is made out under Section 319. The prosecution’s case for summoning the accused is supported, and the appeal is allowed, with the High Court's order set aside.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 319 Crpc
OVERVIEW
- On 07.09.2017, 15 assailants broke into a house in Sirsa, Haryana, to assault inmates. Seven were armed with lathi, while three, Ramesh Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar, and Pawan, were armed with guns and pistols. Police filed charges against nine, but not Ramesh Gandhi, Kalu Jakhar, or Pawan.
- The complainant, as PW-9, revealed the event as an eye witness, assigning roles to three assailants named in the FIR but not charged in the chargesheet.
- On September 7, 2017, PW-9, his brother Pradeep Kumar, and cousin Bijender were sleeping in their house after dinner. At 12:30, fifteen people entered the house with lathi and dada, breaking chains. They were armed with guns, pistols, and lathis. They beat them and threatened to teach them lessons for selling liquor. PW-9’s father Hanuman intervened, and Subhash gave a blow to his father. The accused injured his father, and they left the house after firing from their weapons.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The High Court's revision of Shri Ramesh Gandhi's case, allowing him to flee from the scene, is not in line with Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court's observations are incorrect, as the revisionist fled after the crime was committed by an unlawful assembly. The High Court's uncalled for assumption is also unfounded.
- A court must have prima facie satisfaction before proceeding against an accused. An eye witness’s testimony can be used as evidence, and the trial can be stopped under Section 319 accepted during the application stage of Section 319 Cr.PC.
- Evidence merits should be assessed during the trial, cross-examination of witnesses, and Court scrutiny. The court did not recognize the accused's charges under Sections 458, 460, 323, 285, 302, 148, and 149 of IPC.
- In Hardeep Singh (supra), this court further stated that although a far greater level of satisfaction is required, the Court merely needs to determine if a prima facie case is made out under Section 319.
- The prosecution's case for summoning the accused under Section 319, Cr.PC, is supported. The appeal is allowed, and the High Court's order set aside.
