1 (1) S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.743/2006 (2) S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.881/2006 DATE OF ORDER : 19.8.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr.J.S.Choudhary, for petitioner Rama Kishan. Mr.Ranjeet Joshi, for petitioner Bhanvarlal. Mr.L.R.Upadhyaya, Public Prosecutor. 1. Both these petitions arise out of the same order of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta dated 1.7.2006. In Criminal Revision Petition No.743/06, petitioner Rama Kishan has challenged the order of taking cognizance against him u/ss.341, 323, 324, 325 and 308 r/w 34 IPC, whereas in Criminal Misc.Petition No.881/2006, petitioner Bhanvarlal has challenged this impugned order for not taking cognizance against Ramniwas by the same order. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the parties were directed to produce the statements recorded during trial. Today, the copies of the statements of PW 1 to PW 5 have been produced. 2. This impugned order was passed u/s.319 CrPC, which says that where, in the course of any inquiry into or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being 2 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 offence which he appears to have committed. This is the power of the Court to take cognizance during trial u/s.319 CrPC. The sole purpose of this provision is that it must appear to the court from the evidence on record that there is a ground to proceed against a person. This provision for taking cognizance is synonymous with Section 190 CrPC by magistrate read with Sec.193 CrPC by Sessions Judge. Cognizance is taken, when there are sufficient grounds to proceed against a person. 3. Here in the present case, the learned trial Judge while passing the impugned order on 1.7.06, has taken into consideration the statements of five witnesses recorded during trial. Bhanvarlal (PW 1), who is the injured, in his examination in chief, has stated that he identified five persons viz; Sugna Ram, Rama Kishan, Shivji Ram, Ramdev and Ramniwas. Sugna Ram inflicted axe blow on his head, Rama Kishan inflicted blow with Pharsi and rest inflicted blows on his back side i.e. thighs and other parts of his body. In the cross examination, he has said that he did not support Ramniwas in the election. Ramniwas (PW 2) is the motbir. Fakira Ram (PW 3) has also named both the accused Rama Kishan and Ramniwas alongwith three others but 3 specifically stated that accused Rama Kishan inflicted `pharsi' blow on Bhanvarlal but he did not name Ramniwas in his police statement Ex.D.2 recorded u/s.161 CrPC. Shivji Ram (PW 4) is a hostile witness and Tulsi Ram (PW 5) has not said anything about specific act of Ramniwas but he has said about Rama Kishan that he was having `pharsi' and inflicted blow on Bhanvarlal but in the police statement Ex.D.3, he has not stated the name of Ramniwas. Thus, from the statements of three witnesses viz; Bhanvarlal (PW 1), Fakira Ram (PW 3) and Tulsi Ram (PW 5), prima facie it appears that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against petitioner Rama Kishan, whose name was also there in the F.I.R. but the evidence against Ramniwas was not sufficient for the purpose of taking cognizance. On the basis of omnibus statements, the court cannot exercise the power of taking cognizance u/s.319 CrPC. The statement made during trial, must find support with the specific allegation and also with the statement recorded during investigation, else anybody can be named during trial and the Court cannot, on such light statement, exercise power u/s.319 CrPC. 4. Consequently, the order dt.1.7.06 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta for taking 4 cognizance against petitioner Rama Kishan and for not taking cognizance against Ramniwas requires no interference. 5. As a result, both the petitions are dismissed. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. RANKAWAT JK, PS