KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIJAY Kumar and others are being prosecuted for offences under Sections 307, 341 etc. IPC, on the basis of allegation made in FIR No. 17 dated 24.1.2005. This FIR was lodged by Raj Kumar not only against the persons being prosecuted but also against one Kartar Singh (the present petitioner), who was found innocent during investigation by police.

(2.) RAJ Kumar appeared to give evidence before the Court on 14.3.2006. He stated before the Court that accused attacked his father with base-bat and Churi (knife) and that base-bat used by accused Kartar Singh to injure his father had broken and fallen at the spot. Once the examination-in-chief of Raj Kumar was over, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning petitioner, Kartar Singh as an additional accused to be tried with the remaining accused already facing prosecution. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, has allowed this application and summoned the petitioner to face prosecution in this case alongwith other accused. Kartar Singh, petitioner, accordingly has filed this revision to impugn the said order dated 21.8.2007.

(3.) THE ratio that can be culled out from the above observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that no exception can be taken where the trial Court is of the view that the application should receive its consideration only after conclusion of the cross-examination. It is the discretion to be exercised by the trial Court and if the Court is of the view that such discretion should only be exercised after conclusion of cross-examination of a witness, obviously there can not be any exception to this approach. From this and the above observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would not be possible to view that any binding precedent is being set in this judgment that additional accused can only be summoned upon conclusion of the cross-examination of a witness. The High Court order was set-aside with the observation that no exception can be taken where the trial Court wishes to arrive at its satisfaction after the cross-examination is over. Rather, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rakesh and anr. v. State of Haryana, 2001(3) RCR(Criminal) 681 : AIR 2001 SC 2521 has categorically held that it was difficult to hold the contention that prime evidence as used in Section 319 Cr.P.C. would mean evidence which is tested by cross-examination. As per the Hon'ble Court, the question of testing the evidence by cross-examination would arise only after addition of the accused. The contention raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh (supra) was precisely to this effect, as can be seen from Para 3 of the judgment, which is as under :-