- (1.) THE instant petition u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by petitioner Nathulal against the order dated 17. 12. 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bandikui, District Dausa in Sessions No. 8/2005 whereby the application filed by the petitioner on 14. 11. 2005 u/s. 319 Cr. P. C. has been rejected.
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this petition and necessary for its disposal are that the petitioner-complainant lodged a first information report at P. S. Bhanpur on 27. 8. 2004 whereupon a criminal case being F. I. R. no. 325/2004 came to be registered for offences u/ss. 304-B and 120-B I. P. C. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against accused Jagdish Prasad and investigation was kept pending against Smt. Ghisi Devi, accused non-petitioner No. 2 u/s. 173 (8) Cr. P. C. It being a case exclusively triable by the court of Sessions was committed for trial. The trial court after framing charges against accused Jagdish Prasad recorded statements of witnesses. Thereafter, application u/s. 319 Cr. P. C. was filed by the petitioner on 14. 11. 2005 for arraigning Smt. Ghisi Devi and Sita Ram @ Siyaram, accused non-petitioners No. 2 and 3, respectively as additional accused which, as indicated above, was rejected on 17. 12. 2005. However, the trial court on the same day held accused Jagdish Prasad guilty and after convicting him for offences u/ss. 498-A and 304-B I. P. C. sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence u/s. 498-A I. P. C. and for the offence u/s. 304-B I. P. C. he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 7 years. The substantive sentences were made to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17. 12. 2005 rejecting application dated 14. 11. 2005 moved by the petitioner, the petitioner has challenged the said order by way of this petition. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner has contended that the impugned-order is contrary to law and facts on record. The court below has not properly considered the averments and the evidence on record. The police did not file charge-sheet against Smt. Ghisi Devi and Sita Ram @ Siyaram as it joined hands with the accused. The names of both the accused are mentioned in the F. I. R. and there is specific allegation of committing murder against them. As per statement of PW-1, accused Jagdish Prasad and Sita Ram @ Siyaram had both come on a motor-bicycle to the village of the petitioner and demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lac. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned-order dated 17. 12. 2005 may be quashed and Smt. Ghisi Devi and Sita Ram @ Siyaram may be arraigned and summoned as accused and they may be made to face the trial. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order of the learned court below.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have perused the statements of the witnesses recorded during the trial. It is true as held in Smt. Rukhsana Khatoon vs. Sakhawat Hussain & Ors. : AIR 2002 SC 2342 that the persons named in the F. I. R. as accused but not charge-sheeted can be summoned and arraigned as additional accused u/s. 319 Cr. P. C. particularly when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses corroborates their role in the alleged incident. Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows: " 319 (1) Where, in the course of any 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 which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. . . . " ;