MANISH PURI & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the impugned order under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was passed on 15.12.2011 by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No. 5/2007 under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A l.P.C., the case was pending in that Court and now that Sessions Case No. 5/2007 has been decided on 27.6.2013 by the said Court and one of the two accused-persons, namely, Smt. Mahakori W/o Prabhu Ram has been acquitted by that Court from the charges under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. but another accused charge-sheeted in the said case, Vinod Puri S/o Prabhu Ram has been convicted by that Court under Sections 302, 304B and 498A I.P.C., though he has been acquitted from the charge of Section 309 l.P.C.

(2.) By the impugned order dated 15.12.2011, the said Trial Court had taken cognizance against Manish (brother-in-law of deceased) and Phoolan @ Phoolmati (sister-in-law of the deceased) under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 l.P.C. after examination often witnesses. In the said case accused-persons Vinod Puri and Smt. Mahakori were being prosecuted at that stage for allegedly killing Smt. Kavita and her son Nitin by cutting their nerves/veins by a blade and then throttling both of them by a chunni' (a long piece of cloth). I have gone though the statements of aforesaid ten witnesses, namely, PW-1 Rameshwar Das, PW-2 Rohtash Kumar, PW-3 Anil Kumar, PW-4 Ms. Kela, PW-5 Suresh, PW-6 Satvir, PW-7 Bharat Singh, PW-8 Mahaveer, PW-9 Bheem Singh and PW-10 Krishna Kumar. There is almost no evidence against Manish Puri and Phoolmati @ Phoolan in the statements of these ten witnesses so as to frame a charge in future against them.

(3.) In the decision given by the Five Judges Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court on 10.1.2014 in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 310, it was held that degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning of a person under Section 319, Cr.P.C. would be the same as for framing a charge. A difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning an original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and then in the course of such trial, materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Since, summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial, therefore, the degree of satisfaction of summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different. Other relevant cases on this point are as follows: