Alok Singh, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision is filed by the complainant assailing the order dated 16.01.200 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby application moved by the complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon respondent No.1, as well as, his wife Sudesh and son Sonu to face trial as coaccused for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304- B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code was rejected.
(2.) FOR the unnatural death of Rutesh in her maternal home, accused Rinku, husband of Rutesh, Rajinder son of Bhim Singh, father-in-law of Rutesh, Bala wife of Rajinder, mother-in-law of Rutesh deceased, are facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Dharmbir is maternal uncle of husband Rinku; while Sudesh is the wife of Dharmbir and Sonu is the son of Dharmbir. It is admitted fact, as observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, that Dharmbir, maternal uncle and his son Sonu are staying separately at Village Bodli, which is 40 kms. From village Padha; whereas Sudesh is living at Sahabad, which is 90 kms. away from village Padha and maternal home of the deceased is village Padha. Undisputedly, respondent No.1 herein was having separate residence, mess from the deceased and her husband and in-laws. The floating allegation against Dharmbir and his wife and son is that whenever they visited to village Padha, they also used to harass the deceased Rutesh for bring less dowry.
(3.) HONBLE Apex Court in the matter of Ram Pal Singh & others versus State of U.P. and another, reported in 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 131, in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 has observed as under:- 15. The ingredients of Section 319 are unambiguous and indicate that where in the course of inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence, for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence he has committed. 16. All that is required by the Court for invoking its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be satisfied that from the evidence adduced before it, a person against whom no charge had been framed, but whose complicity appears to be clear, should be tried together with the accused. It is also clear that the discretion is left to the Court to take a decision on the matter.;