LILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this revision petition Lila Devi has assailed the order dated 3.11.1992 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad whereby she was summoned as an accused to stand trial for offences under Sections 323/324 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this Revision Petition are that one Sita Ram, a resident of village Kajalheri made a statement before the police that on 10.7.1991 at about 9.30 A.M. he alongwith Ram Karan and Ram Dhari was irrigating his land and his elder brother Ram kara was looking after the flow of water at some distance. Banwari son of Ram Narain, Vijay Singh and Leela Devi all armed with 'kasolas' were standing near the 'naka', Ram Karan told Banwari that his turn of water was over and own he was to irrigate his land at which Banwari caught hold of Ram Karan and Vijay Singh gave a 'kasola' blow to him from his backside. Sita Ram rushed to the spot when he was also caused injuries by Vijay Singh and Lila Devi. Injuries were also received by Ram Dhari son of Ram Karan who was attracted to the spot. After the incident the injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Fatehabad where they remained admitted. Initially on the above statement a case under Sections 323/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and later on Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. During investigation Lila Devi was found innocent by Shri Mange Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad, while challan was presented against Banwari and his son Vijay Singh. Name of Lila Devi was shown in Column No. 2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE only contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was that under the provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C. when in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. The word "evidence" used in Section 319 of Cr.P.C. means admissible evidence. A incomplete statement of a witness, when he was not cross-examined could not be treated as evidence upon when the court could act while dealing with an application under the provisions of law. I support of his contention he referred to the case of Amarjit Singh alias Amba v. State of Punjab and another, 1983(1) Recent Criminal Reports 643 and Roshani Devi v. State of Haryana, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 661. In this latter authority it was held that "it is the settled position in law that the word evidence used in Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, means admissible evidence. An incomplete statement of a witness, whether being only his statement in examination-in- chief or at any other stage before it is completed, cannot be treated as evidence upon which the court can act while dealing with an application under the provisions of law".