Smt. Rajjo and another vs State of Haryana and another

Uma Nath Singh, J.—This order shall also dispose of connected Criminal Revision No. 786 of 2003 (Smt. Tripo and Ors. v. State of Haryana and another). It appears that this Criminal Revision has been preferred against an order dated 4.1.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, while exercising powers u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after having recorded the testimonies of complainant Jagdish (P.W.-1) and his brother Raj Kumar (P.W.-2), has come to the conclusion that other co-accused, who had been exonerated by the police in a challan, also needed to be tried for the offence under Sections 148, 323, 325, 307 and 427 read with Section 149 IPC. It seems that the occurrence had taken place on 17.6.2001 at 2.30 p.m. and only a DDR was registered on that day. The FIR was registered, after an inordinate delay of 13 days, on 1.7.2001. Initially, there was no allegation as regards Section 307 IPC, which was added subsequently on 3.8.2001 on a Doctor''s opinion. In the final report also, the police exonerated the present accused-Petitioners.

From a careful scrutiny of the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, it appears that the impugned order does not contain any reason, much less plausible reason, for invoking powers u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure Such powers should be exercised sparingly. He has not pointed out any specific materials or reasons in the statements of the aforesaid two witnesses for his satisfaction and coming to the conclusion that the accused-Petitioners are involved in commission of the offence. Complainant Jagdish (P.W.-1) has admitted in his cross-examination that none of the accused, namely, Inderraj, Sehdev, Mohan, Raju, Anil, Sudhir, Smt. Kailash, Sunda and his son and wife, Smt. Rajo and Smt. Ramesh inflicted any injury to him. The complainant has received two injuries, namely (i) a lacerated wound of size 6 cms. x 7.5 cms. x bone deep over parietal region, and (ii) some injury on the chest as according to the Doctor, the patient was complaining chest pain. Another injured witness Raj Kumar (P.W.-2) has received three injuries, which, prima facie, appear to be simple in nature. In the records available with learned Counsel for the parties, there is no X-ray report. As per testimony of Raj Kumar (P.W.-2), only accused Jaikesh gave a jelly blow on the head of complainant Jagdish (P.W.-1). In his cross-examination, P.W.-2 has stated that he suffered injuries at the hands of Raju, Narender and Anil. He has admitted that none else except them, inflicted any injury to him.

As regards the position of law today in respect of exercise of powers u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, Hon''ble the Apex Court in a judgment reported in Michael Machado and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, has held that mere suspicion of involvement of accused in the offence is not enough and the power, though being discretionary in nature, should be exercised judicially, when the evidence indicates reasonable prospects of conviction. In another judgment reported in Rakesh and Another Vs. State of Haryana, , it is held by Hon''ble the Apex Court that power u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure should be sparingly exercised. Thus, taking into account the totality of circumstances, the impugned order, except in the case of Jaikesh, who appears to be author of serious blow on complainant Jagdish (P.W.-1), as is obvious from the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.- 2, deserves to be set aside. Hence, it is ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, Crl. Revision No. 444 of 2003, filed by Smt. Rajjo and Smt. Ramesh, is allowed in toto, whereas, Crl. Revision No. 786 of 2003 filed by Smt. Tripo and others is allowed in part inasmuch as it succeeds in respect of all other Petitioners, except Petitioner No. 9 Jaikesh.

Petition allowed.