Crl. Revision No. 1924 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1924 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 23, 2010 Aas Mohammad ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 5.6.2009, passed by the trial Court, whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Section 319 Cr.P.C. reads as under :- “Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence : (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the Crl. Revision No. 1924 of 2009 2 offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” As per the above provision if during trial it transpires that any person not being the accused has also committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. The present case rests on circumstantial evidence. Abdul Aziz respondent No.2 had returned to India 1 month prior to the occurrence to perform the marriage of his daughter. The said respondent had been working in Saudi Arabia for the last 5-6 years. Apart from the statement of P.W.5 Jakir Hussain that he had last seen the respondents No.2 and 3 in the company of the deceased, there is no other material available on record qua respondents No.2 and 3. Extra judicial confession was suffered by Mohd. Ahsan qua whom challan was presented by the police. During investigation respondents No.2 and 3 were found innocent. Moreover, now the trial has since been concluded and Mohd. Ahsan has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The learned trial Court had observed in the Crl. Revision No. 1924 of 2009 3 impugned order that it was not believable that Abdul Aziz who had come to perform marriage of his daughter would commit the murder of deceased (Usman) without any enmity just to loot Rs.25,000/- and that too with his own son Tafajjul. The reasons given by the trial Court while dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are sound reasons. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) July 23, 2010 JUDGE Anand