Brijendra Singh And Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.:— This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners against the order dated 6/10/2015 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Karauli in Sessions Case No. 151/2012 whereby the application filed by the complainant u/s 319 Cr.P.C was allowed and cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offence u/ss 147, 148,149, 323, 448, 302/149 IPC and also under Section 3 & 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (P.A) Act and ordered to implead the accused petitioners as accused to face the trial along with other accused persons who are already facing trial and summoned the present accused petitioners by way of arrest warrant.

2. The brief facts of case are that on 29/4/2000 the complainant Harkesh Meena submitted a written report against the present petitioners and other co-accused persons at Police Station Sapotra District Karauli with regard to an incident alleged to have taken place on the same day.

3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, an FIR no. 53/2000 was registered for the offence u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 448, 302/149 IPC and under Section 3 & 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (P.A) Act. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons namely Bhanwar Singh, Pratap Singh and Shimbhu Singh @ Shivraj for the offence u/Ss 147, 148, 149, 323, 448, 302/149 IPC and under Section 3 & 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (P.A) Act. Thereafter the Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Karauli on 11/8/2000 took cognizance against the accused persons for the aforementioned offences and committed the case to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A) Cases, Karauli for trial.

4. On the application under 193 Cr.P.C moved by the complainant, the trial court took cognizance against the petitioners vide order dated 6/9/2000. Against the said order, earlier the present petitioners filed SB Cr. Revision Petition No. 505/2000 before this court, which was allowed vide order dated 16/4/2009 by which order of cognizance dated 6/9/2000 was set-aside after giving liberty to the complainant to move an application u/s section 319 Cr.P.C at the appropriate stage. The trial court framed the charges against the accused persons namely Bhanwar Singh Pratap Singh and Shimbhu Singh @ Shivraj for the offence u/Ss 147, 148, 149, 323, 448, 302/149 IPC and Section 3 & 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (P.A) Act. The accused persons denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, statements of 23 prosecution witnesses were recorded.

5. After expiry of five years, an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C was filed by the complainant before the trial court. The trial court after hearing the parties allowed the application vide impugned order dated 6/10/2015 and took cognizance against the petitioners, hence this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka has contended that the order dated 6/10/2015 passed by the trial court is illegal and not sustainable being contrary to provision of law. He further contended that earlier the complainant moved application u/s 193 Cr.P.C which was allowed by the trial court on 6/9/2000. Thereafter the petitioners preferred revision petition before this court which was allowed by the order dated 16/4/2009 with the liberty to complainant that he is free to move an application under section 319 Cr.P.C before the trial court at appropriate stage of trial. Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the trial court has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case. Further he has contended that there is contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses who have been examined by the trial court and no case is made out against the petitioners. He further contended that the trial court has summoned the petitioners through arrest warrant which should not have been issued against them. He has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Hardeep singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal.

7. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has contended that the trial court took cognizance on an application moved u/s 319.Cr.P.C by the complainant as he was given liberty to move an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C at the appropriate stage of the trial. Further he has contended that the trial court has passed the order dated 6/10/2015 which is just and proper and the trial court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioners and summoned through non bailable warrant of arrest and the charge against the petitioners is punishable under section 302/34 IPC as well.

8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

9. While allowing the application under section 319 Cr.P.C filed by the complainant, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A) Cases, Karauli observed as under:

10. I am in full agreement with the observations made by the court below while allowing the application under section 319 Cr.P and I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the trial court.

11. Consequently the revision petition is dismissed.