IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1216 of 2008 RAM PARIKSHAN SINGH, S/o Late Ram Pal Singh, R/o village- Jahangirpur Patedha, P.S.-Sarai, District-Vaishali …. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ravi Shankar Kumar, S/o Late Hari Shankar Singh, R/o- Village- Jahangirpur Patedha, P.S.-Sarai, District-Vaishali. …. Opposite parties. For the petitioner : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh,Advocate. For the State : Learned A.P.P. ----------- 2 28.06.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is one of the three proposed accused(s), who have been summoned by the learned trial court vide order dated 16-07-2008 passed in S.T. NO. 63/96 invoking provisions contained in Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Code”). PW-4(son of the deceased) lodged an F.IR. alleging therein that on the date of occurrence when he went to the place where cattle were tied in the previous night, he found that his father was not present there. The door was found locked in which he was used to sleep in the night. On search, dead body of his father was found lying in the nearby field in a pool of blood. In the FIR itself, informant had named only Ramanand Singh. The suspicion was however raised on these accused persons. The informant also alleged that accuseds were earlier giving threatening to his father on account of pending land disputes. Investigating officer on conclusion of the investigation 2 submitted charge sheet against one accused person. The matter was committed to the court of sessions. At the trial as many as four witnesses namely PW-1 (Dilip Kumar), PW-2 (Dinesh Prasad Singh), PW-3 (Kanti Devi) and PW- 4(informant) were examined. Depositions of these witnesses are on record as Annexure-2 series. It would be better, if the relevant part of their examinations-in-chief of PWs 3 and 4, who are wife and son of the victim respectively is/are extracted herein: PW-3 Kanti Devi: 1- 4-3-95 dh ckr gSA le; vkB cts jk=h dk FkkA esjs ifr jkst fnu dh rjg [kkuk [kkdj vius cFkku esa pys x;sA 2- esjs ifr tc cFkku tkus ds fy;s fudys rks vfHk;qDr jkekuan flag Hkh muds ihB ij fudysAA blij geus dksbz fo'ks’k /;ku ugha fn;kA 3- esjk yM+dk jfo'kadj dqekj dy gksdj lqcg esa nkSM+rk gqvk vk;k vkSj crk;k dh firkth dh gR;k dj nh xbz gSA yk'k iM+h gSA 4- eSa jksrh fpYykrh vius ifr ds ikl cFkku esa xkao ds yksxksa ds lkFk xbZA ogka igqaph rks ns[kk fd esjs ifr e`r iM+s gSaA rFkk iqjs 'kjhj esa dVk gqvk t[e ns[kk A esjs ifr cFkku ls if'pe lkbM esa iM+s gq, FksaA 5- ?kVuk ds nks fnu iwoZ esjs yM+ds us crk;k Fkk fd mlus ns[kk gS fd cFkku ds ,d iSfj;k jkLrk ij dqN yksx [kM+s Fksa A VkWpZ pykus ij jkekuan flag rFkk rhu pkj vKkr O;fDr;ksa dks ns[kk Fkk rFkk VkWpZ dh jks”kuh iM+rs lHkh Hkkx x;sA 6- tehu laca/kh fookn gekjk xqykcpan flag] jke ijh{k.k flag] rqylh lkg rfkk x.kir flag l spy jgk FkkA bldks ysdj geyksxksa esa dbZ ckj yM+kbZ >xM+k gqvk FkkA dsl mBkus ds fy, os yksx /kedh Hkh fn;s FksaA 7- ?kVuk ds igys pkj&ikap fnu igys xkao esa vius ifr ds lkFk cFkku esa Fkh rc jkekauan flag] jke ijh{k.k flag] rqylh lkg vkdj /kedh fn;k Fkk fd eqdnek mBkk yks ugh arks ;gka ls gkthiqj rd rqedks dHkh Hkh bl nqfu;k ls mBk ysaxsA PW-4 (Son of victim): 2- eSaus firkth dks [kkstk ij os dgha ugha feysA eq>s 'kd gqvk] FkksM+h nwj if'pe esa x;k rks ogka firkth dh [kqu ls yr&ir e`r 'kjhj dks ns[kkA 3- mlds ckn ge vius ?kj x;s vkSj eka dks tkudkjh nh vkSj xkao ds yksxksa dks Hkh dgkA 4- mlds ckn esjs lkFk gekjh eka rFkk xkao ds cgwr lkjs yksx ?kVuk LFky ij vk,A ogka gekjs firkth dk [kqu ls yr&ir e`r 'kjhj dks lcksa us ns[kkA 5- ?kVuk ds nks fnu iwoZ eSa vius firkth ds lkFk ml ?kVuk dh jk=h 3 vkB cts cFkku ij vk jgk Fkk rks jkLrs eas jkekuan flag 3&4 uo;qodksa ds lkFk ns[kkA VkWpZ dh jks”kuh geus tykbZ rks jkekuan flag dks igpkuk Fkk rc lHkh yksx if”pe dh vksj pys x;sA 6- jkLrs esa gh firkth dks dgk fd ;s yksx tku ekjus ds fu;r ls ;gka gSaA eSaus firkth us bl ckr ij Fkkuk esa lugk nsus ds fy;s dgk] geus lugk ugha fn;kA firkth us dgk fd NksM<+ nksA 7- tehu laca/kh fookn gekjk xqykcpan flag l spy jgk gS A jke ijh{k.k flag] x.kir flag ,oa rqylh lkg ls Hkh tehu laca/kh fookn py jgk gSA vHkh eqdnek dksVZ esa yafcr gSA The other two prosecution witnesses have likewise supported the aforesaid statements of these witnesses. Immediately after examination of the witnesses, prosecution filed an application under section 319 of the Code. Section 319 of the Code reads as under: Sec. 319. 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 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 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.” Learned trial court after hearing both sides, has found that on perusal of evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and after going through the materials available on record a case has been made out which would justify putting the petitioner herein on trial as there was adequate material on 4 record depicting complicity of the petitioner in the crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, submits that in fact the statements, which have been made by the prosecution witnesses during trial, were made by them before the Investigating Officer, but the Investigating Agency, on verification, was not satisfied with those statements and ultimately the petitioner herein was not sent up by the investigating agency. It is his contention that on same set of evidence, trial court has invoked Sec. 319 of the Code, which is not justified in law. Learned Additional P.P., on the other hand, opposed the application and supported the impugned order. It is contended that the court for the first time was confronted with the substantive evidence of the prosecution witnesses and on a consideration thereof, it has come to the conclusion that materials brought during trial in the shape of evidence of PWs 1 to 4 do, prima facie, implicate the petitioner and as such the order merits no interference. It is next contended that by the impugned order, these accuseds including petitioner were summoned. Petitioner alone has challenged the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to either accept or deny the aforesaid submissions of the learned Additional P.P. Section 319 of the Code is a jurisdiction conferred on the trial court to ensure that no accused person against whom there is adequate material on record is let off without there being a trial. It is the settled law that even on strong suspicion an accused can be tried. Learned trial court before whom the witnesses were examined considered their 5 evidences in right perspective and has come to the conclusion that the implication of the petitioner in the alleged crime is prima facie established. There was adequate evidence on record to justify their trial. On these premise the jurisdiction conferred upon it, was invoked. This court does not find any illegality and/or perversity in the said order. In the result, this court finds no merit in the application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Sujit ( Kishore K.Mandal, J.)