PANCHADIA JAYA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 23-2-1998 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in S.C. No. 173/96 petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') to quash that order. It appears from the L.C.R. that on 3-3-1996 Huika Kumuti was killed. On the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the widow of the deceased investigation was undertaken and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted against accused Mandingi Chandal (not a party in this proceeding). He was sent to the Court of Sessions to face the trial. Charge for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. was framed against him. At the stage of recording of evidence informant i.e. the widow of the deceased deposed about participation of the present petitioner in the killing of the deceased. At that stage, learned Public Prosecutor filed an application before the trial Court to invoke the power u/S. 319 of the Code to add the petitioner as an accused in that trial. That petition was allowed vide the impugned order on the ground that evidence of P.W.1 prima facie shows that petitioner is one of the assailants of the deceased.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that F.I.R. as well as the statements u/S. 161 of the informant and the other witnesses do not show participation of the petitioner in the alleged crime in any manner whatsoever and P.W.1 has developed a new story only at the stage of her examination in the trial Court. He further argued that when the provision u/S. 319 of the Code has to be exercised carefully and only in the event of compelling circumstance, learned Sessions Judge should not have readily accepted evidence of P.W.1 and should not have allowed the petition u/S. 319 of the Code. He has relied upon a plithora of decisions regarding the principle u/S. 319 of the Code.

(3.) Learned Addl. Standing Counsel, on the other hand, drawing attention of the Court to Section 319 of the Code vis-a-vis the principle of law in the decision relied upon by the petitioner argued that at the stage of consideration of an application u/S. 319 of the trial Court is not required to go to scan case diary or to evaluate the statements recorded u/S. 161, but to remain confined to the evidence tendered at the time of trial. He argued that when evidence of P.W.1 is clear and unambiguous regarding participation of the petitioner in the alleged crime, he cannot escape the trial on the ground of non-availability of his name in the F.I.R. or the statement under Section 161 of the Code.