Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.17 of 2008 ====================================================== Parmila Devi W/o late Karyanand Sharma, R/o village- Kewali, P.S.- Sono, District- Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Chunu Singh S/o Narsingh Singh 3. Maku Singh S/o late Pardip Singh 4. Laveshwar Singh S/o Munsi Singh 5. Nand Kishore Singh S/o late Lakhan Singh 6. Nagi Singh S/o late Saryu Singh 7. Unil Singh S/o Khelo Singh, Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 7 are R/o village- Kewali, P.S.- Sono, District- Jamui ……. ……Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Prakash Chandra Jha, Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 27-08-2012 Heard. The petitioner, being informant of the criminal case, has preferred the present criminal revision application under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), questioning the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 23.11.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2007/Tr. No. 5 of 2007 by the learned Fast Track Court No. 2, Jamui, rejecting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to summon the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 in exercise of the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.17 of 2008 (6) dt.27-08-2012 2/6 powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. for facing trial in the aforesaid criminal case. The facts involved in the present case can be put in a narrow compass. The petitioner lodged a criminal case for offences under [STATUTE] with respect to the murder of her husband. In the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1 opposite party nos. 2 to 7 are not named as accused, though some other persons are named as accused. It is also true that on conclusion of the investigation chargesheet was not submitted against the opposite party nos. 2 to 7, though chargesheet was submitted against accused Manoj Singh and accused Santosh Singh. Accordingly, cognizance was taken against those chargesheeted accused persons and the case was committed to the court of sessions, giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2007. After framing of the charge trial commenced against those two accused persons and during course of trial five prosecution witnesses were examined. It is the case of the petitioner that those five P. Ws. have not only supported the prosecution case, but have named opposite party nos. 2 to 7 also to be persons responsible and involved for commission of crime in question. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.17 of 2008 (6) dt.27-08-2012 3/6 Accordingly, a petition under section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial court with a prayer to summon opposite party nos. 2 to 7 for facing trial in the aforesaid criminal case. The learned trial court has rejected the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 23.11.2007. Hence, the present revision application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the stage of section 319 Cr.P.C. the learned trial court is required to find out only a prima facie case to issue summons to any other person, who is not facing trial, if on the basis of evidence available on the records it appears to the court that such person has committed any offence and could be tried together with the accused already facing trial. For issuance of summons at that stage, the standard of proof required for the purpose of conviction is not required to be applied. It is the positive case of the petitioner that all those five P. Ws. have named the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 as the persons involved for commission of crime in question. Therefore, according to the counsel, the learned trial court ought to have summoned these opposite party nos. 2 to 7 directing them to face trial under the mandate of section 319 Cr.P.C. In support of the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.17 of 2008 (6) dt.27-08-2012 4/6 above contention he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bholu Ram vs. State of Punjab & another reported in (2008) 9 SCC 140. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 has strongly opposed the prayer and has supported the impugned order. According to learned counsel that none of the P. Ws. examined on behalf of the prosecution has assigned any specific role against the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 for the commission of crime in question. It is next contended that none of the witnesses claimed to be eye witness of the actual occurrence of murder, and none of them have disclosed the manner in which opposite party nos. 2 to 7 are said to be involved for commission of crime in question. Therefore, according to him, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. After having heard the parties and on examination of the materials available on record as also on perusal of the impugned order dated 23.11.2007, this Court finds that five P. Ws. examined on behalf of the prosecution have named the opposite party nos. 2 to 7, besides others, involved for commission of crime in question, though none of them claimed to be eye witness of the actual occurrence of Patna High Court CR. REV. No.17 of 2008 (6) dt.27-08-2012 5/6 murder. According to the witnesses the deceased was last seen in the company of the aforesaid opposite party nos. 2 to 7. This Court is of the considered opinion that at the stage of section 319 Cr.P.C. the learned trial court is required to find out only a prima facie case and nothing beyond. The possible defence of the proposed accused persons cannot be considered at that stage. If the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 are summoned for facing trial along with other accused persons, then they shall

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.