Gopi Naik & Others vs State Of Odisha

D.Dash, J

This matter is taken up by hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical mode).

Heard.

Admit.

On consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned counsel for the State; the Revision is heard on merit.

The Petitioners, by filing this Revision, have called in question the legality and propriety of an order dated 01.05.203 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T. (S) Case No.113 of 2022.

By the said order, the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under section 319 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and thereby has proceeded against these Petitioners in saying that they too should face the trial for commission of the offence under section 30/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 8the IPC9).

Mr.B.B.Routray, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Trial Court, keeping in view the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 & 3, has passed the impugned order in arraigning these Petitioners as accused persons to face the trial and in that exercise, the evidence of P.W.5 has not been touched upon. He further submits that when the Trial Court has placed much emphasis upon the evidence of P.W.1 in arriving at a reasonable satisfaction as to the involvement of these Petitioners, it has not taken into account the evidence of P.W.2, which indicate that P.W.1 had not seen the occurrence and under the circumstance, when P.W.5, who was projected as one of the eye witnesses to the occurrence, has not supported the prosecution case, the Trial Court ought not to have passed the order impugned in this Revision, which according to him, is vulnerable.

Mr.D.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government for the Opposite Parties submits that at the stage of considering the application under section 319 (1) Cr.P.C. so as to arraign other persons, who are not facing the trial as accused persons; the Court is not required to go for a detail analysis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He, therefore, submits that on the face of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 & 3, the Trial Court did commit no error in passing the impugned order.

Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the impugned order. I have also perused the case record.

It appears that these Petitioners were named in the FIR indicating their involvement in the commission of the offences. P.W.1, in his evidence, has stated the role of these Petitioners in the incident. P.W.2, having stated about the occurrence, has at a later stage, however, gone to say that he had not seen the incident and also that P.W.1 went to the spot later. It also reveals that P.W.5 has remained silent and, therefore, has been cross-examined by the prosecution with the permission of the court.

It is settled position of law is that before exercising the power under section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court must be objectively satisfied that the evidence or the circumstance warrant the addition of another person as accused in the case. For exercise of power under section 319 (1) Cr.P.C., it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed the offence for which that person could be tried. The Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First, that the other person has committed an offence; and second, that for such offence, that person could be tried along with the already arraigned accused.

In the given case, on the face of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, at this stage, this Court finds that the Trial Court has rightly arrived at a reasonable satisfaction that these Petitioners have committed the offences and be tried for the same.

In that view of the matter, finding no such illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, the Revision stands dismissed.

……………………………….