PANKAJ NAQVI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.B.L. Gour, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ankit Agarwal for revisionists and learned A.G.A.
(2.) THIS criminal revision is preferred against the order dated 13.2.2015 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court no.14, Bulandshahar in Sessions Trial no. 818 of 2013 (arising out of Case Crime No.192 of 2013), summoning the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 306 IPC.
(3.) THE Court has perused the impugned order and finds that PW -2/ the daughter of the deceased in her evidence stated that on the intervening night of 4/5.4.2013 while she was sleeping with her mother, her father Prem Singh came to forcibly wake up her mother; hurled abuses at her mother, as a result of which she (PW -2) woke up, desisted her father from doing so, thereafter Prem Singh, Gulab Singh Rana (Revisionist no.2), Phoola Devi (Reviionist no.1) and Ramvir took her mother away. She further stated that her father used to beat her mother and had been doing so for the last 4/5 years and was apprehensive of her mother's life at the hands of her father. She also stated that she prevented her mother from going with the accused persons, but to no avail. The body of the mother was seen in a hanging condition in a grove at 11:00 A.M on 6.4.13. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2014 3 SCC 92 after analyzing the previous judgments of the Apex Court held in paragraphs 105 and 106 as under: - "105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other persons may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 106. Thus, a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross -examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence" is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused". The words used are not "for which such person could be convicted". There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused." ;