GOPI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition as per provisions of Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred to assail the order dated 26.8.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anupgarh, rejecting an application preferred under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that at the instance of the petitioner a first information report was lodged at Police Station Suratgarh contemplating offences under Sections 302- 498-A IPC against Krishnalal, Beerbalram, Kamla, Santram and Suresh. After investigation a police report as per provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the competent court against accused Beerbalram, Kamla and Suresh alleging commission of an offence under Section 498-A IPC, whereas accused Krishnalal was charged for an offence punishable under Section 302-498-A IPC. After getting the statements of PW-1 Gopiram, PW-2 Balvindra Singh, PW-3 Madanlal and PW-4 Sohanlal recorded, the prosecution submitted an application to include Santram also in the array of accused persons. THE application aforesaid was pressed with submission that the witnesses aforesaid in quite unambiguous terms stated that Santram alongwith Beerbalram, Kamla and Suresh stated to abovenamed witnesses to excuse them for the crime committed by them and this fact clearly establishes his involvement in the offence alleged.

(3.) HAVING considered the entire material available on record I am of the considered opinion that mere naming of respondent Santram by the witnesses is not sufficient to add him as an accused and to call for facing trial. His naming may create little doubt about his involvement in the offence but i.e. not sufficient to exercise powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. While exercising powers under the provision aforesaid mere availability of prima facie case is not adequate but there should be cogent reason to believe that there are all chances of conviction of the person whose addition in the trial is claimed. Such cogent and definite chance at least at this stage is not available. Thus, I do not find any wrong with the order impugned. The revision petition, therefore, is dismissed.