Ranjit Kaur @ Rano @ Ramjit Kaur @ Ramo and Another vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—Petitioners, by way of this petition, have challenged the order dated 3.11.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, whereby they were ordered to be summoned to face the trial under Sections 307, 326, 324, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on an application moved by the prosecution u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short).

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that there was No. material available before the trial Court warranting summoning of the Petitioners to face the trial along with the accused, who were already facing the trial.

Learned State counsel on the other hand, has submitted that from the testimony of PW-2 Didar Singh, it was evident that the Petitioners were also present at the spot and had participated in the alleged crime.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:

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.

Thus, as per the above provision, the trial Court can summon any person to face the trial along with the accused, who are already facing the trial, if during trial there appears from the evidence on record that the said person had also committed the offence and was liable to be tried with the accused facing the trial.

A perusal of the statement of PW-2 Didar Singh reveals that although the said witness had deposed that the Petitioners were present at the spot but No. overt act has been attributed to them by the said witness at the time of the alleged occurrence. The Petitioners were found innocent during investigation. The present case is a case of version and cross-version. Trials qua both the versions are pending. The possibility that the Petitioners have been named by PW-2 with a view to involve more persons as accused cannot be ruled out. No. overt act has been attributed to the Petitioners by PW-2. In these circumstances, the trial Court erred in summoning the Petitioners to face the trial as an accused.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.11.2010, qua summoning of the Petitioners to face the trial as accused, is set aside.