Crl. Revision No. 1906 of 2009(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1906 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:February 09, 2010 Sakir ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.I.S.Saggu , Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Raja Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana Mr.R.S.Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. *** GURDEV SINGH, J. This revision petition has been preferred by petitioner-Sakir against the order dated 10.7.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge(Ad hoc), Nuh, summoning him to stand his trial along with the other accused, for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). Facts, in brief, are that FIR No. 409 dated 24.12.2007 under Crl. Revision No. 1906 of 2009(O&M) -2- Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC was recorded in Police Station Punhana District Mewat, on the statement of Yakub-complainant, father of the prosecutrix. He did not name the present petitioner. He had shown a suspicion that his daughter had been kidnapped by Vakila on the instigation of Ashique. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which she named both those persons and the present petitioner. However, during the investigation, he was found to be innocent and was not challaned. During trial, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded and thereafter, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning him as an additional accused. That application was allowed, vide the aforesaid order. Notice of the revision was given to the respondents. I have heard counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never mentioned as an accused in the FIR and he was named for the first time when the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, he was found to be innocent during investigation. No doubt, the prosecutrix while deposing in the Court, named him also as an accused but the statement made by her does not inspire any confidence. She made material improvements while making her statement. The trial court was not justified in summoning the petitioner on the basis of that statement. On the other hand, it was contended by the State counsel that when the prosecutrix was examined in the Court, she specifically stated that this petitioner was also with the other accused when she was kidnapped and he also committed rape on her. The statement made by the prosecutrix Crl. Revision No. 1906 of 2009(O&M) -3- inspires confidence and conviction of the petitioner can be recorded on the basis thereof. There is no ground for setting aside that order. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by the trial court in which she categorically stated that this petitioner and the other accused took her forcibly in a car near hills situated in between villages Singar and Punhana, where they committed rape on her one after the other. She was subjected to cross examination also. That statement is not be interpreted meticulously at this stage. It is well settled law that the conviction of the accused can be based on solitary statement of the prosecutrix even without any corroboration. The only infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the statement of the prosecutrix, is that she was confronted with her previous statement. She was not confronted on material aspects of the case and she did not make material improvements while making her statement in the Court. It has recently been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2010(1) Criminal Court Cases 269 that: “In view of the settled legal position as above, we hold that a person who is named in the first information report or complaint with the allegation that he/she has committed any particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not launch prosecution or files charge-sheet or drops the case, can be proceeded against under Section 319 Cr.P.C., if from the evidence collected/produced in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, the Court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with other accused. As a corollary, we hold that the Crl. Revision No. 1906 of 2009(O&M) -4- process issued against the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed only on the ground that even though she was named in the complaint, the police did not file charge-sheet against her.” The Court was to satisfy itself prima facie that the petitioner committed an offence for which he can be tried with other accused. The finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is supported by sound reasoning. There is no ground for upsetting that order. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE February 09, 2010 PARAMJIT