VENKATAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are added as additional accused Nos. 15 to 19 consequent upon the order passed by the Sessions Court by allowing the application filed by the Public Prosecutor under Sec. 319 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) The fact is, the respondent/Police registered a FIR against ten accused persons, subsequently, charge sheet was filed against 14 accused persons by dropping five accused Nos. 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 (petitioners herein) cited in the FIR and arraigning nine others. While the complainant was examined as PW-1, during examination-in-chief evidence, he testified against the petitioners herein. At that stage, the learned Public Prosecutor requested the Court to defer the examination-in-chief evidence of CW-1/ PW-1 and file an application under Sec. 319 of Crimial P.C. alleging that, the I.O. had given up these persons without valid reasons, which has prejudiced the prosecution case leading to injustice to the victims of the incident. On that, summons was ordered to the accused persons. On their appearance, considering their objections, impugned order is passed.

(3.) Sri. Tomy Sebastian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners while taking the court through the prosecution papers submits that, CW-4, who was the scribe of the complaint, is none other than the brother of the complainant. In his further statement recorded on 21.2.2010, CW-1 had specifically stated to the effect that the petitioners were not involved in the incident. In his previous statement dated 14.2.2010, he had named others, who had indulged in the galata. CWs-2, 3 and 4 are the kith and kin of CW-1. CWs-5 to 23 are the direct eye-witnesses to the incident. None of them had cited these petitioners as offenders. That being so, on 110.2015, while CW-1 was in the witness box, he during the course of examination-in-chief evidence testified against petitioners as the offenders. Immediately the Public Prosecutor presented an application under Sec. 319 of Crimial P.C. which he had already kept prepared and requested the Court to defer the further examination-in-chief of the witness. That by itself would smack that the Public Prosecutor beforehand had anticipated evidence that was going to be adduced by CW-1 during his examination-in-chief evidence. The Apex Court in its judgment, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (AIR 2014 SC 1400) in the matter of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others has dealt in detail the scope and jurisdiction under Sec. 319 of Crimial P.C. At para-92 it was observed thus: