IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.570 of 2008 RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE KAILASH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DODHA KURTHA DIH, P.S.- TEHATA DISTRICT- JEHANABAD. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. GEETA DEVI WIFE OF DINESH SINGH 3. MALTI DEVI WIFE OF ASHOK SINGH 4. SAROJ SINGH WIFE OF DILIP SINGH 5. CHANDRI DEVI WIFE OF BINDESHWAR SINGH 6. ARCHANA KUMARI, D/O- DINESH SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE NIMCHAK, P.S.- BELAGANJ, DISTRICT- GAYA. For the petitioner : Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the O.P. : Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 4 09.09.2010 Petitioner is the informant .He is aggrieved by the order dated 7.5.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 306 of 2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. II, Gaya whereby the application preferred by him under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) for summoning O.P. nos. 2 to 6 to stand trial has been considered and rejected. The deceased was living in Sasural. As per allegation in the F.I.R., on the date of occurrence, in between 8-9 P.M., one of the co-accuseds namely Srikant came there and took the victim on the pretext of taking food with the family .The deceased went to the house of co-accused Bindeshwari Singh. After some time, the witnesses heard the cry raised by the deceased. They arrived at the place of occurrence only to see that the victim was caught hold of by co-accused Bindeshwari Singh and was being assaulted by his son Srikant. It is also the allegation that one 2 relative of main accused Bindeshwari Singh was also found assaulting the victim. The F.I.R. further discloses that the other lady inmates of the house (O.P. nos. 2 to 6 herein) were also seen assaulting the victim by ‘danda’. The victim died of the injuries sustained at the hands of the accuseds. The Doctor has found two injuries caused on the head by hard and blunt substance on and around the head of the injured. F.I.R. lodged by the father of the deceased gave rise to investigation whereafter charge-sheet was submitted only against three male accuseds. The female inmates of the family were not sent up for trial. At the trial, 02 witnesses namely P.W. 1 (mother-in-law of the deceased) and P.W. 2(brother-in-law of the deceased) were examined. It is to be recorded here that the informant of the case was not till then examined by the prosecution. At this stage, an application was filed under Section 319 of the Code which was considered and rejected by learned trial court which is made impugned in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order submits that there is/are sufficient evidence on record in the shape of evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 which would justify summoning of the proposed accused to face the trial. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the face of the evidence on record, learned trial court erred in rejecting the application. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite 3 parties, on the other hand, submitted that there is no convincing evidence on record which could justify summoning of the accused persons. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are mother and son respectively. P.W. 1 is said to have stated in her examination-in-chief that when she reached the place of occurrence, it was seen that Bindeshwari Singh had caught hold of the victim whereas Srikant and another co-accused namely Kamta were assaulting the deceased. She has further stated that female inmates of the house were also seen assaulting the victim by fists and slaps. P.W. 2 (son), on the other hand, has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, the victim was seen caught hold of by co-accused Bindeshwari Singh and was assaulted by means of lathi by co-accused Srikant and another accused called Kamta. He has, however, also stated that the female inmates were also seen assaulting the victim by lathi and danda. Learned trial court considered their evidence in great detail and has come to the conclusion that their evidence are at sharp variance. It has also been found that so far as accusations made against the proposed accused nos. 2 to 6 herein is/are concerned, no such statement was made by them before the Investigating Officer. Let it be recorded here that both the P.Ws were examined in chief and thereafter cross-examined in great detail. It is also seen from their evidence that so far as the role of 4 the proposed accuseds are concerned, both the witnesses are at quite variance. Law is well settled. The Court has to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Section 319 of the Code in a very sparingly manner. If there is compelling reasons for summoning the accused then only the Court has to exercise the jurisdiction. The finding of the Court below in the impugned order is that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 are not sufficient enough to implicate the proposed accuseds (O.Ps) and having found so, learned trial court has refused to exercise its jurisdiction. The court below has also taken note of the fact that without examining the informant, the prosecution hurried to file the application which seemed to be probably premature. Having regard to all these observations/findings recorded by the learned trial court, this Court declines to interfere with the order impugned. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )