VIRENDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 8. 8. 2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar allowing the application u/s. 319 Cr. P. C. for arraigning the petitioners as additional accused in Sessions Case No. 5/2006 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 341, 302/149, 307/149 and 323/149 IPC.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that Bachchu Singh lodged an F. I. R. on 7. 8. 2005 at 4. 30 P. M. at P. S. Khairthal with the allegation that at about 11. 30 a. m. on that day seven persons including the present petitioners named in the F. I. R. came and assaulted Kailash, Jeetram and Mewa as a result of which, Kailash died and Jeetram and Mewa sustained injuries. Insured Kailash succumbed to the injuries. After investigation the police filed charge sheet against only four accused persons. THE case was committed for trial.

(3.) IT has been held in Michael Machado and Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. 2000 Cr. L. J. 1706 (SC) that extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr. P. C. is discretionary and it should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. IT is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. IT has been further held that judicial exercise is called for keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the court had spent for collecting such evidence. The Court has also to bear in mind while examining an application under Section 319 Cr. P. C. that there is no compelling duty of the court to proceed against other persons. If there is prima facie case and there is reasonable prospect of conviction of the persons being arraigned as additional accused for the alleged offences, the court may arraign and summon such persons as additional trial has already concluded, such persons may be tried separately as has been held in the case of Shashikant Singh vs. Tarkeshwar Singh & Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 738.