KAILASH DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Leave granted.

(3.) From the incident which led to sessions trial S.T. No. 269 of 2001 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Chatarpur three persons, after investigation, were sent for trial for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, I.P.C. It is also stated that one other accused named Om Prakash was absconding hence trial against him was separated. During the pendency of the trial and after the material witnesses were examined an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the complainant, the 2nd Respondent herein, to include the Appellant herein as accused on the ground that during the course of trial the Appellants participation in the crime has been established. The learned Sessions Judge who entertained the said application came to the conclusion, after considering the material on record, all that was mentioned in the F.I.R. did not show anything more than the presence of the Appellant and no other overt act was attributed to him. He also came to the conclusion that the evidence recorded at the time of trial also did not implicate the Appellant so as to invoke his jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code. Learned Sessions Judge also observed that the main witnesses in the trial have all been examined and from the same nothing implicating the Appellant was noticed. The trial court thereafter relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Michael Machado v. CBI 2000 (1) ACR 747 (SC): (2000) 3 SCC 262, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the said application.