Criminal Revision No.780 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Revision No.780 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 20.7.2011 Zile Singh PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and another RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Amit Rana, D.A.G. Haryana. Shri C.B.Goel, Advocate for the respondent. MAHESH GROVER, J. This petition is directed against the order of the learned trial Court dated 7.12.2009 vide which the application moved by the prosecution to summon the additional accused under the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was declined. The learned trial Court had declined the prayer, but while doing so, it observed during the course of its reasoning as follows :- “6. The police investigation arrived at the conclusion that Ram Niwas, a policeman, was posted with Shri Ashwin Shenvi, IPS, Additional Superintendent of Police, Karnal on Criminal Revision No.780 of 2010 -2- 25.2.2009. The statement of Sh.Ashwin Shenvi, IPS, was recorded who in fact gave in writing to the investigating officer that Ram Niwas was in fact present in person with him on 25.2.2009 at Karnal. He had sought leave with permission to leave the station after learning about the incident pertaining to his sister-in-law, Sita and the request was allowed. The note given in writing by Ashwin Shenvi, IPS, Additional Superintendent of Police, Karnal is reproduced as under :- “I, Ashwin Shenvi, IPS, posted as ASP, Karnal since November 1, 2008. Ct.Ram Niwas 1164/KNL works in my Reader branch. He was present in my office on 25.2.2009 till 12.30 p.m. He received a call on his mobile at around 12.15 p.m. from his brother Rajesh that his sister-in-law (Rajesh's wife) got burnt in an accident. At this moment, he seeked my permission to go to Gohana and I permitted him to leave immediately. Place : Karnal Sd/- ASHWIN SHENVI, IPS, ASP, Karnal Dtd. 5.4.09.” The prosecution has placed much reliance upon the statement made by the deceased before the investigating officer of the case at about 4.35 p.m., inter alia, naming Ram Niwas as one of the persons who had poured kerosene on her and had set her ablaze. She was admitted in the hospital at about 1.15 p.m. On that day with 95 to 100% burns. Her condition was so precarious that she died within eight hours of her admission in the hospital. It may be very safely said that the patient was administered tranquilizers and other medicine to Criminal Revision No.780 of 2010 -3- minimize the sensation of pain in her. The Judicial Magistrate reported at the spot within one hour of the recording of the statement by the police but the doctor on duty declared the patient unfit to make statement. She stated before the police in the alleged dying declaration that she was married to accused Rajesh four years ago whereas her own brother has stated that she was married with him on March 6, 2003. She was thus married to Rajesh for the past six years and not four years. This fact is sufficient to draw some inference about the actual state of mind of the patient after three hours of her admission in the hospital. There is material available on record to believe that the deceased suffered from some mental ailment and that she was treated by Dr.R.L.Garg, Psychiatrist, Ex-Registrar, PGIMS, Rohtak on August 27, 2008. Dr.Garg had in fact certified on 17.4.2009 on police request that deceased Sita indeed suffered from some mental ailment. PW Zile Singh had arrived at her bed side along with half a dozen kin by 2.30 p.m. He had met the police at 4 p.m. but he did not make statement instantly. His statement was recorded after Sita had allegedly made statement at about 4.35 p.m. The facts narrated above lend support to the conclusion drawn by the investigating officer that Ram Niwas was present at Karnal at the time of the occurrence. The incident had taken place at Gohana. This Court shall take judicial notice of the fact that the two places are separated by a distance of approximately 75 to 80 kilometers. Therefore, the Criminal Revision No.780 of 2010 -4- possibility of Ram Niwas being at Gohana at the time of the occurrence has to be ruled out. The alleged dying declaration has made no reference to any type of harassment or torture at the hands of the accused on account of the demands for dowry.” A perusal of the aforesaid reveals that the learned trial Court clearly over-stepped its jurisdiction while commenting upon the application under Section 319 Cr.PC. Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. visualises a situation where the evidence comes on record during the course of trial which warrants the summoning of such accused to stand trial, provided such evidence is a quality evidence which is sufficient to lead to an inferential conclusion that it would lead to the conviction of the persons who are so sought to be summoned. At the time of evaluating such an evidence and in order to answer the application, the scope of reasoning to be adopted by the trial Court has to be within the confines of the requirement of law implying thereby that it has to see whether such evidence is sufficient and qualitative in nature to summon the accused to stand trial, but under no circumstances, can it extend its reasoning to the domain of evaluation of the correctness of the evidence which may have the effect of negating or accepting the story of the prosecution or of the defence, as this would amount to concluding the trial itself. If the afore-extracted paragraph of the impugned order is to be seen, then the learned trial Court has commented upon practically the entire aspect of the evidence of the prosecution and in the process, has virtually awarded an acquittal to the accused person. This is not the intended scope of evaluating the material under Section 319 Cr.P.C. This Court is in fact, constrained to comment that the impugned order is beyond the parameters of the prescribed norms. Criminal Revision No.780 of 2010 -5- Consequently, the order dated 7.12.2009 impugned herein is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court to re-consider the application made by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and to determine it afresh in view of the specific parameters of law. While doing so, it shall not be influenced by any of the observations which have been made in the impugned order. (MAHESH GROVER) July 20, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO