GOVIND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 20.03.2009 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Karauli, whereby his application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C was rejected.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner had lodged a report on 01.11.2007 with the allegation that his daughter, namely Pyar Bai, had died on account of tendering a poisonous substance with kerosene to her by Ramdhan, Smt. Rajanti and Raghuveer Mali. On the said report, an FIR was registered against all the three persons for the offence under Sec. 304-B IPC. Thereafter, the investigation commenced and statements of witnesses were recorded wherein they had levelled allegations against the accused persons. It is the case of the prosecution that another daughter of the petitioner, namely Jamna Bai, married in the same family, is the eye-witness of the incident. On conclusion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet only against Raghuveer for the offences under Sec. 304-B IPC. The investigation against Ramdhan and Smt. Rajanti Bai was kept pending under Sec. 173 (8) Crimial P.C. The concerning Magistrate then took cognizance against the accused Raghuveer and committed the case to the Sessions Court. Subsequently, during the course of trial, the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. The petitioner had then filed an application under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. for taking cognizance against Ramdhan and Smt. Rajanti Bai. But the said application was dismissed by the learned trial court on 07.01.2009. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the complainant petitioner preferred a revision petition before the High Court (No.162/2009) and the same came to be decided on 09.02.2009 with the direction that the application under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. be decided afresh keeping in view the statements of Govind (PW-1), Jamna Bai (PW-13) and Swaroopi (PW-14). Thereafter, the learned trial court considered the application again and dismissed the same by its impugned order dated 20.03.2009. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that allegations against non-petitioners Ramdhan and Rajanti Bai had been made in the First Information Report as well as in the evidence recorded during the course of investigation. But even then the police had filed challan only against one person on 24.03.2008 and had kept the investigation pending against the non-petitioners, under Sec. 173 (8) Crimial P.C. Later on, the police proceeded to close the investigation against the non-petitioners by filing an application under Sec. 169 Crimial P.C. before the learned trial court on 25.09.2008. Further, he has submitted that the evidence against the non-petitioners had come on record, during the course of trial, in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. He has also submitted that the learned trial court had erroneously rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. and the same is contrary to the provisions of law as well as the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court. In support of the submissions, he has placed reliance on the cases of Shashikant Singh Vs. Tarkeshwar Singh & Anr., 2002 (1) WLC (SC) Cri 586 : (2002) 5 SCC 738 ; Ramji Lal & Ors. Vs. State, 2006 (4) WLC (Raj.) 678 ; Lok Ram Vs. Nihar Singh & Anr., 2006 (1) WLC (SC) Cri 595 : (2006) 10 SCC 192 ; Bholu Ram Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2008 (2) WLC (SC) Cri 653 ; Mohd. Umar Bhai Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 39 ; Ram Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2009) 4 SCC 423 and Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 694/2009, decided on 09.07.2009 .