Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 9th April, 2003
Bench: Justice Y. K. Sabharwal & Justice H. K. Sema
Facts of the Case: In nutshell, the case set up by respondent No. 2, son of the deceased, in complaint is that on 8th October, 1998, the accused armed with weapons came to the disputed land and tried to stop him and his brother from ploughing the land by standing in front of their tractor. A shot fired hit the deceased Gurcharan Singh who fell down and died. When respondent No. 2 and his brother went to the Police Station, they found the accused already
present with the Police. The Police did not listen to them. They also went to hospital but hospital authorities refused to conduct the medical examination saying that it was a Police case and medical examination could be done at the instance of Police. The medical examination of his brother Baljinder Singh was conducted on 9th October, 1998 after an order was obtained from the Court. The Police instead of registering the case against the accused, with a view to help them, registered a false case against the complainant and others under Sections 302/147/148/149/447 IPC on 9th October, 1998 on the basis of the statement of one Mohabbat Singh-resident of Rame village. However, on 14th October. 1998, a case against the petitioners and three others was registered under Section 302/307 IPC.
The question for determination is as to the applicability of Section 319 of the Code, under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, to the petitioners who are already accused in a Police case in respect of the same occurrence.
Judgment of the Case: The Supreme Court held that the power of summoning under Section 319(1) is required to be sparingly used it being a discretionary power but on facts of the present case, it cannot be held that the discretionary power has not been properly and legally used. The power is to be exercised to achieve criminal justice. As already noticed, though occurrence is the same but there are two versions-one in the Police case and the other in the case in which the petitioners have been directed to be summoned. In case the petitioners are not before the Court as accused in the case in hand, the Court would not be in a position to convict and appropriately sentence them even if the version of the occurrence as given by Respondent No. 2 is accepted and held proved beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioners. We are of the view that there is no merit in points 1 and 2 as well. In view of the above discussion, the Supreme Court found no substance in the petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS