AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 374 wordsS.S. Sodhi, J. (Oral)
The impugned order of the trial Court summoning the petitioner Roshni Devi, to stand trial for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the charge framed against her in pursuance thereof, cannot indeed be sustained.
A reference to the material on record would show that it was during the crossexamination of Sohan Lal, who was the first witness to be examined in the trial against the coaccused of the petitioner that the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed praying therein that Roshni Devi also be summoned as an accused in the case. The impugned order came to passed before the crossexamination of the said Sohan Lal had concluded.
It is the settled position in law that the word `evidence'' used in Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'') means admissible evidence. An incomplete statement of a witness, whether being only his statement in examinationinchief or at any other stage before it is completed, cannot be treated as evidence upon which the court can act while dealing with an application under this provision of law. It was held to this effect by this provision of law. It was held to this effect by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 5484M of 1980 (Roor Singh v. State of Punjab), decided on December 17, 1980, which was later approved by D.S. Tewatia, J. in Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983(1) Recent Criminal Reports 643 : 1983(1) C.L.R. 653 . Such, thus being the law, the order summoning the petitioner as an accused before the conclusion of the sttatement of P.W.1 Sohan Lal cannot, but he held to be patently erroneous and is accordingly hereby quashed as also the charge framed against the petitioner as a consequence thereof.
It is, however, clarified that it would be open to the trial court to consider the matter regarding the summoning of the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code afresh, if it so deems necessary after taking into account the completed statement of Sohan Lal or even at any subsequent stage of the trial.
This revision petition is disposed of accordingly.