JITENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner against the order dated 08.04.2009, whereby an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. had been rejected.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that an FIR was lodged by Jitendra Singh, petitioner, brother of the deceased, on 14.01.2008 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. In the said First Information Report, allegations had been made in respect of harassment and demand of dowry, against the husband Ashok Singh, father-in-law Brikh Bhan Singh and mother-in-law Draupati. After lodging of the report, the investigation commenced and the police filed challan against the husband Ashok Singh for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and as against the other accused persons investigation was kept pending under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. In the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation, such as, Smt. Usha Devi, etc. allegations had been made against all the three persons. During the course of trial, the statements of material witnesses were recorded on 22.09.2008 onwards as PW-9, etc. After recording of the statements of Sonu Devi (PW- 14) on 11.02.2009, the complainant-petitioner moved the instant application under Section 319 Cr.PC. for impleading non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 as accused in the present case. The learned trial court, by its impugned order dated 08.04.2009, had dismissed the application. Hence, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner has submitted that in the First Information Report, non-petitioner No. 2 and 3 have been named and allegations were made against them. Further, he has submitted that during the course of investigation, the material witnesses of the prosecution had made allegations against non-petitioner. According to him, the Investigation Agency had erroneously filed challan only against the husband Ashok Singh and kept the investigation pending against the other accused persons. He has also submitted that the prosecution witnesses have deposed before the trial court against non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 and, as such, they ought to have been impleaded as accused persons and application under Section 319 Cr.PC. should have been allowed. Referring to the principle of law according to which a person is to be impleaded as an accused during the course of trial when evidence is so recorded, he has placed reliance on the case of Mohd. Umar Bhai v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 39 and also Ram Pal Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2009) 4 SCC 423 .