Dinesh Kumar Singh - (1.) The present revision has been filed impugning the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Hardoi in Session Trial No.389 of 2011, arising out of Crime No.330 of 2011, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionists have been summoned as additional accused to face trial under Section 498A, and 304-B IpC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.) The revisionists are uncle, aunt, grandmother, cousin sister and widow sister of the uncle. The revisionists were named in the FIR.and a general allegation was made that they all were demanding Rs.50,000/- for opening a shop by Santosh Kumar, husband of the deceased and when demand was not fulfilled, they all used to beat the deceased. It was also alleged that Santosh Kumar, husband of the deceased, had illicit relation with sister-in-law of the maternal uncle. From the post-mortem report, it is evident that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. The investigating officer after investigating the FIR.and collecting the evidence, did not find any evidence against the revisionists and filed the charge sheet only against the husband. All witnesses whose statements were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. unequivocally said that the revisionists had separate living. However, the trial court only on the basis of the statements of the complainant and his wife, where they had reiterated the FIR.version, had summoned the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without adverting to the evidence collected by the investigating officer.
(3.) Hon'ble the Supreme Court in several judgements has held that the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the additional accused should be used sparingly and whether there is credible and cogent evidence available against the accused.;