Ram Pal Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Anr

2. In respect of an incident which took place on 1st October, 2006, in the day time at about 1.00 p.m., Kamlesh Singh (PW.1) lodged a complaint 2 before the Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur, U.P., alleging that while his younger brother, Brijesh Kumar Singh alias Bablu Singh along with his brother-in-law Manvender Singh, was going on foot towards Mani Chauraha through Gupta Colony at Sitapur, U.P., the accused persons, in a planned manner with common intention, attacked the deceased and Manvender Singh. On account of such assault, Brijesh Kumar Singh died on the spot and Manvender Singh also sustained injuries. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a challan against the accused persons on 22nd October, 2006, under Section 307, 302 read with Section 120-B IPC and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the Sessions Court for trial.

3. On 19th June, 2007, the deposition of Kamlesh Singh (PW.1) was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitapur. The said witness reiterated the statements which had been made by him in the First Information Report. It also appears that on the 3 same day, Kamlesh Singh filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Sitapur, for summoning the appellants herein to face trial in respect of the said incident. The said application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 5th July, 2007, and against such order of dismissal, Kamlesh Singh filed Criminal Revision No.413 of 2007, which was disposed of by the High Court on 29th August, 2007, by setting aside the impugned order and directing the trial Court to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made in the order of the High Court.

5. The dismissal of the application was followed by a second criminal revision petition filed by the respondent No.2 on 5th October, 2007, being No.549 of 2007 and after hearing the parties, the High Court came to the conclusion that the fresh order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 15th September, 2007, was in direct defiance of the order passed by the High Court earlier on 29th August, 2007. In that view of the matter, the High Court not only sought for an explanation from the learned trial Judge for not complying with the aforesaid order of the High Court, but after quashing the impugned order dated 15th September, 2007, directed the trial Court to issue summons against Ram Pal Singh, Deepak Singh, Ajai Kumar Singh and Anil Kumar Singh for their appearance as accused in Sessions Trial No.1163 of 2006 under Section 302, 307 and 120-B IPC.

9. Mr. Francis submitted that while passing the impugned order, the High Court did not consider the fact that the application made under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed for summoning the appellants had been rejected on the ground that the injured witness Manvendra Singh had not indicated their complicity with the incident in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the High Court came to the conclusion that it was obligatory on the part of the learned Trial Judge to have summoned the appellants to face trial and has failed to do so against the existing canons of law. Mr. Francis submitted that although the High Court had intended the Trial Court to pass a fresh order along the lines suggested by it in its order dated 29th August, 2007, the Trial Court had in defiance of 8 the said order, recklessly passed the order dated 15th September, 2007, which was no different from its earlier order refusing to summon the appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

10. Mr. Francis submitted that the hard stand taken by the High Court would be evident from its order seeking an explanation from the Trial Judge for not complying with the intent of the Court, as clearly indicated in the order of 29th August, 2007. Apart from quashing the second order passed by the Trial Judge on 15th September, 2007, the High Court directed the Trial Court to issue summons against the appellants herein for their appearance as accused in ST No.1163/2006 under Sections 302, 307 and 120-B I.P.C.

14. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and have arrived at the conclusion that no interference is called for with the order passed by the High Court. 11

18. Although, certain other observations made by the High Court regarding the orders passed by the Trial Court could and should have been avoided, we are also of the view that the High Court had not committed any error in directing that the appellants be summoned to stand trial along with the co-accused, in view of the evidence of P.W.1 during the trial itself.

19. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and uphold the direction given by the High Court for summoning the appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

________________J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR) ________________J.

(CYRIAC JOSEPH) New Delhi Dated: 13.02.2009.