TARUNENDRA BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Impugned order dated 22.4.1996 passed by 1st ASJ., Sidhi in S.T. No. 95/95 perused.

(2.) ON the basis of FIR dated 6.4.1995 in Crime No. 154/95 of P.S. Kotwali, Sidhi, accused persons Mangleshwar Singh, Jeetnarayan, Sitasharan, Pushpendra Singh were charge sheeted under section 302, 201/34 IPC in the matter of causing homicidal death of Ramdayal.Surajbhan Sahu, Babulal Sahu were examined by the police during the course of investigation. Their statements under section 161 Cr. P.C. are Annexure II and III respectively. Babulal (PW 7) was examined in the Court of ASJ on 4.4.1996 and in para No. 4 said to have stated that the deceased Ramdayal was beaten by the accused persons, charge sheeted in Crime No. 154/1995 at the instance of petitioner Tarunendra Bahadur Singh alias Babu Singh in his presence. On the basis of this statement (Annexure v), Surajbhan preferred an application under section 319 CrPC requesting to implead the petitioner as an accused in S.T. No. 95/95. Vide impugned order dated 22.4.1996, the application was allowed and petitioner Tarunendra Bahadur Singh, S/o Babu Singh, aged 50 years, was directed to be impleaded as an accused to face the trial in the aforesaid Session trial alongwith others. This order dated 22.4.1996 has been challenged in this revision on the ground, that there was no material available before the Court on the said date to say that the petitioner Tarunendra Bahadur Singh was present on the spot where Ramdayal was beaten and that the incident was at his instance.

(3.) THE provision under section 319 CrPC be read with the dictum laid down in AIR 2000 SC 1127 (Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation). Unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned, the Court should refrain from adopting such a course of action u/s 319 CrPC. It is stated at the bar that S.T. No. 95/95 in the Court of 1st A.S.J., Sidhi, resulted into acquittal as against Pushpendra Singh and Sitasharan vide judgment dated 29.8.1997. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 22.4.1996 passed by the 1st A.S.J., Sidhi, in S.T. No. 95/95 allowing application of Surajbhan Sahu u/s 319 CrPC cannot be upheld.