JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Cr. Revision Petition under Section 397 r/w. 401, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 19-9-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 4/2003 whereby, the application of petitioner Jagdish filed u/S. 319, Cr. P.C. has been rejected. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the accused-respondents and others gave beating to the petitioner and his family members after entering into his house on 23-9-2002 at about 6.00 p.m. An FIR being No, 533/2002 was lodged at 8.15 p.m. on the same night about the aforesaid occurrence by one Ramgopal Yadav for offences under Sections 147, 452 and 323, IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of A.C.J.M. Shahpura for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 307, IPC against accused Kalu only. The case was committed to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahpura for trial. After hearing both sides and upon a perusal of the materials placed on record, charges were framed against accused Kaluram. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses out of whom, P.W. 1 Goru, P.W. 2 Bhagwan, P.W.3 Jagdish, P.W. 4 Girdhari, P.W. 12 Bhagirath Prasad and P.W. 13 have turned hostile. They did ot support the prosecution story. Other witnesses simply named the other accused persons. They did not specify any overt act on their part.

(2.) Petitioner submitted an application under Section 319, Cr. P.C. on 16-4-2005 stating that from the materials and evidence on record which has been recorded during trial, offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307 and 452, IPC are clearly made out against the accused persons. So, they may also be arraigned as additional accused. After hearing both the sides and upon secutiny of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court declined to arraign the non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 as the additional accused. It has been observed that arraigning non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 as additional accused would tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 319, Cr. P.C. was rejected. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also perused the relevant record.