Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Pandit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
1 CRR-375-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 375 of 2017
SHIV PANDIT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Satyendra Kumar Vyas - Senior Advocate with Shri Govind Rai
Purohit- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi - GA for the State.
(Heard on: 06.01.2026)
(Delivered on: 25.03.2026)
ORDER
This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 is preferred challenging the order dated 30.01.2017 in ST
No.224/2013 by the 4t h Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam (MP) whereby
the revision petitioners have been summoned as accused under section 319
(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in a case arising out of crime no.147/2013 registered
at P.S.-Industrial Area Ratlam, District Ratlam under sections 302 and 506
read with section 34 of the IPC.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that FIR in crime No.147/2013 was
lodged by Naved Khan at 5 p.m. of 15.04.2013 regarding murder of Saheer
at 2:45 p.m. of 15.04.2013 in front of Chevrolet showroom near dargha of
Pehalwan Baba Ratlam within the jurisdiction of Industrial Area, Ratlam
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
2 CRR-375-2017
disclosing the name of Shiv Pandit and Piyush Bhatt (present revision
petitioners) and Bhupendra Pawar along with one another person.
Completing the investigation, final report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C.,
1973 was submitted disclosing the offence of 302, 506 read with section 34
of the IPC and under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 against
Bhupendra, Vaibhav and Manoj and keeping the investigation pending
against present revision petitioners under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.,
1973.
3. The chronology of events reveals that first application under section
319(2) of the of the Cr.P.C., 1973 was disposed off on 02.03.2015 observing
that order shall be passed after recording the statement of Naved Khan.
Naved Khan was examined on 09.04.2015 as PW-10 and thereafter
arguments were heard on the application under section 319(2) of the Cr.P.C.,
1973 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2015. Order dated
30.05.2015 was challenged through CRR No.748/2015 before this court and
vide order dated 21.08.2015, criminal revision was allowed and present
revision petitioners were ordered to be summoned as accused. Order dated
21.08.2015 in CRR No.748/2015 of this court was challenged before the
Apex Court and vide order dated 08.02.2016 in criminal appeal No.108/2016
arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.8651/2015, the CRR No.748/2015 was directed
to be decided afresh. Accordingly, vide order dated 02.01.2016 in CRR
No.748/2015 order dated 30.05.2015 by the trial court was set aside and trial
court was directed to decided the application expeditiously as early as
possible and vide order dated 30.01.2017 application under section 319(2) of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
3 CRR-375-2017
the Cr.P.C., 1973 was allowed and present revision petitioners Shiv Pandit
and Piyush Bhatt was ordered to be summoned as accused.
4. Challenging the impugned order this revision petition is preferred
on the ground that the evidence of other witnesses does not reveals that
Naved Khan (PW-10) was present at the place where Saheer was shot. The
witnesses have not been declared hostile and are binding on the prosecution
case. The evidence of all the witnesses have to be seen while considering the
case and the court cannot pick any particular evidence or statement. In the
present case the only evidence against revision petitioner is Naved Khan
(PW-10) and the statements of other witnesses are creating doubt on the
presence and this witnesses. Police has not found any involvement of
present revision petitioners and the investigations of the police indicates that
the complainant/author of the FIR was not present at the time when incident
took place. Apart from the statement of author of FIR more than 9 witnesses
have also been examined and no witness other than Naved Khan, who
himself was not present at the time of the incident have stated the name of
the present revision petitioners. Petitioners have not assaulted any persons or
caused any injury or any loss to any individuals. It is also argued that
rojnamcha No.1202 dated 15.04.2013 written at 14:50 hrs at P.S. Industrial
Area, Ratlam on the information received through telephone is not
conformity with the narration of the incident stated by Naved Khan PW-10.
This rojnamcha is the first and for most written action of the incident.
During the arguments a report of STF, Bhopal submitted on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
4 CRR-375-2017
12.12.2015 through document No.13083/2025 by Shri Rajesh Joshi was also
emphasized. Revision petitioners are referring to Bhagatram Vs. State of
M.P. 1990 MPLJ 0770; Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2004) 7 SCC
792; Michale Machado Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2000) 3 SCC
262; Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan (2008) 14 SCC 51 .
5. Heard.
6. Counsel for the State opposes the criminal revision.
7. Perused the record.
8. Firstly, the legal principles for exercising the power under section
319 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 which is being reproduced below:-
” 319. Power to proceed against other persons
appearing to be guilty of offence.-
(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.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under
arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such
Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the
offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under
sub-section (1), then–
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be
commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may
proceed as if such person had been an accused person
when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon
which the inquiry or trial was commenced.”
9. In Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others 2014 SCC 92 the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
5 CRR-375-2017
standard of evidence for exercising the power under section 319 of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 has been laid down in para-98 and 99 which is being
reproduced as below:-
“98. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a
discretionary and an extra- ordinary 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 person 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.
99. Thus, we hold that though only 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 theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
6 CRR-375-2017
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.
Q.(v) In what situations can the power under
this section be exercised: Not named in FIR;
Named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted or
has been discharged?”
10. Yadwinder Singh Vs. Lakhi Alias Lakhwinder Singh and Another
Etc. 2025 INSC 420 was the matter before the Apex Court wherein Special
Investigating Team (SIT) was constituted to verify the facts because of the
sensitive nature of the incident and SIT found that the respondents could not
have been at the place of incident for cogent reasons i.e. (i) on the basis of
witnesses supporting their presence at some other place(s) and (ii) also on the
basis of CCTV footage, which is an electronic evidence but the Apex Court
did not interfere in the order of summoning. Relevant paras- 16, 17 and 18
of the same is being reproduced as below:-
” 16. It is at this stage that the comparison of
the words used under Section 319 CrPC has
to be understood distinctively from the words
used under Section 2(g) defining an inquiry
other than the trial by a Magistrate or a court.
Here the legislature has used two words,
namely, the Magistrate or court, whereasSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
7 CRR-375-2017
under Section 319 CrPC, as indicated above,
only the word “court” has been recited. This
has been done by the legislature to emphasise
that the power under Section 319 CrPC is
exercisable only by the court and not by any
officer not acting as a court. Thus, the
Magistrate not functioning or exercising
powers as a court can make an inquiry in a
particular proceeding other than a trial but the
material so collected would not be by a court
during the course of an inquiry or a trial. The
conclusion therefore, in short, is that in order
to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC,
it is only a Court of Session or a Court of
Magistrate performing the duties as a court
under CrPC that can utilise the material
before it for the purpose of the said section.
17. Section 319 CrPC allows the court to
proceed against any person who is not an
accused in a case before it. Thus, the person
against whom summons are issued in
exercise of such powers, has to necessarily
not be an accused already facing trial. He can
either be a person named in Column 2 of the
charge-sheet filed under Section 173 CrPC or
a person whose name has been disclosed in
any material before the court that is to be
considered for the purpose of trying the
offence, but not investigated. He has to be a
person whose complicity may be indicated
and connected with the commission of
the offence.
18. The legislature cannot be presumed to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
8 CRR-375-2017
have imagined all the circumstances and,
therefore, it is the duty of the court to give
full effect to the words used by the legislature
so as to encompass any situation which the
court may have to tackle while proceeding to
try an offence and not allow a person who
deserves to be tried to go scot-free by being
not arraigned in the trial in spite of the
possibility of his complicity which can be
gathered from the documents presented by
the prosecution.”
11. In Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav vs State of U.P 2025 INSC
1386 Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed the law governing the summoning
of an additional accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and the
relevant para- 6 and 7 are being reproduced below:-
“6. The law governing the summoning of an
additional accused under Section 319 CrPC is
now well settled. The provision is an enabling
one, empowering the Court, during the course
of an inquiry or trial, to proceed against any
person not already arraigned as an accused,
if, from the evidence adduced before it, such
person appears to have committed an
offence. Its object is to ensure that no guilty
person escapes the process of law, thereby
giving effect to the maxim judex damnatur
cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned
when guilty is acquitted). It casts a duty upon
the Court to ensure that the real offender does
not go unpunished, for only then can the
concept of fair and complete trial be realised.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
9 CRR-375-2017
7. It is no longer res integra that the power
conferred under this Section is extraordinary
and discretionary in nature, intended to be
exercised sparingly and with due
circumspection. While invoking it, the Court
must be satisfied that the evidence appearing
against the person sought to be summoned is
such that it prima facie necessitates bringing
such person to face trial. The degree of
satisfaction required is higher than that
warranted at the stage of framing of charge,
yet short of the satisfaction necessary to
record a conviction. Such satisfaction must
rest on cogent and credible material brought
on record during the trial, and not based on
conjectures or speculations. In this regard,
reference to a few judicial pronouncements
of this Court would be apposite.
7.1. The Constitution Bench of this Court in
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (((2014) 3
SCC 92)) extensively discussed the power
conferred under Section 319 CrPC. Relevant
part is extracted hereunder:
“90. … all that is required for the exercise of
the power under Section 319 CrPC is that, it
must appear to the court that some other
person also who is not facing the trial, may
also have been involved in the offence. The
prerequisite for the exercise of this power is
similar to the prima facie view which the
Magistrate must come to in order to take
cognizance of the offence. Therefore, no
straitjacket formula can and should be laidSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:813910 CRR-375-2017
with respect to conditions precedent for
arriving at such an opinion and, if the
Magistrate/court is convinced even on the
basis of evidence appearing in examination-
in-chief, it can exercise the power under
Section 319 CrPC and can proceed against
such other person(s). It is essential to note
that the section also uses the words “such
person could be tried” instead of should be
tried. Hence, what is required is not to have a
mini-trial at this stage by having examination
and cross-examination and thereafter
rendering a decision on the overt act of such
person sought to be added. In fact, it is this
mini-trial that would affect the right of the
person sought to be arraigned as an accused
rather than not having any cross-examination
at all, for in light of sub-section (4) of
Section 319 CrPC, the person would be
entitled to a fresh trial where he would have
all the rights including the right to cross
examine prosecution witnesses and examine
defence witnesses and advance his arguments
upon the same. Therefore, even on the basis
of examination-in-chief, the court or the
Magistrate can proceed against a person as
long as the court is satisfied that the evidence
appearing against such person is such that it
prima facie necessitates bringing such person
to face trial. In fact, examination-in-chief
untested by cross examination, undoubtedly
in itself, is an evidence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
11 CRR-375-2017
xxx
106. Thus, we hold that though only 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 CrPC 1973. In section 319 of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 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
persons 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 of Cr.P.C.,1973 to form any
opinion as to the guilt of the accused.
xxx
110. In Lal Suraj [Lal Suraj v. State of
Jharkhand, (2009) 2 SCC 696 : (2009) 1 SCC
(Cri) 844] , a two-Judge Bench held that
there is no dispute with the legal proposition
that even if a person had not been
chargesheeted, he may come within the
purview of the description of such a personSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
12 CRR-375-2017
as contained in Section 319 CrPC. A similar
view had been taken in Lok Ram [Lok Ram
v. Nihal Singh, (2006) 10 SCC 192 : (2006) 3
SCC (Cri) 532 : AIR 2006 SC 1892], wherein
it was held that a person, though had initially
been named in the FIR as an accused, but not
charge-sheeted, can also be added to face the
trial.
xxx
117.6. A person not named in the FIR or a
person though named in the FIR but has not
been chargesheeted or a person who has been
discharged can be summoned under Section
319 CrPC provided from the evidence it
appears that such person can be tried along
with the accused already facing trial…”
(emphasis supplied)
7.2 In S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra
Chandak 2017 INSC 999 it reiterated that
under this Section the Court possesses the
power to summon the persons not named in
the chargesheet to face trial, if the evidence
on record so warrants. It further clarified that
a statement recorded under Section 161
CrPC, though not an independent piece of
evidence, sufficient in itself to invoke the
power under this Section may, nevertheless,
be relied upon for corroborative purposes
when supported by evidence emerging during
trial. It was observed as under:
“34. … No doubt, at one place the
Constitution Bench observed in Hardeep
Singh case [Hardeep Singh v. State ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:813913 CRR-375-2017
Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC
(Cri) 86] that the word “evidence” has to be
understood in its wider sense, both at the
stage of trial and even at the stage of inquiry.
In para 105 of the judgment, however, it is
observed that “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”.This sentence gives an
impression that only that evidence which has
been led before the Court is to be seen and
not the evidence which was collected at the
stage of inquiry. However there is no
contradiction between the two observations
as the Court also clarified that the
“evidence”, on the basis of which an accused
is to be summoned to face the trial in an
ongoing case, has to be the material that is
brought before the Court during trial. The
material/evidence collected by the
investigating officer at the stage of inquiry
can only be utilised for corroboration and to
support the evidence recorded by the Court to
invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC.
35. It needs to be highlighted that when a
person is named in the FIR by the
complainant, but police, after investigation,
finds no role of that particular person and
files the chargesheet without implicating him,
the Court is not powerless, and at the stage of
summoning, if the trial court finds that a
particular person should be summoned as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
14 CRR-375-2017
accused, even though not named in the
chargesheet, it can do so. At that stage,
chance is given to the complainant also to file
a protest petition urging upon the trial court
to summon other persons as well who were
named in the FIR but not implicated in the
chargesheet. Once that stage has gone, the
Court is still not powerless by virtue of
Section 319 CrPC. However, this section gets
triggered when during the trial some evidence
surfaces against the proposed accused.”
(emphasis supplied)
7.3 In Omi v. State of M.P. (((2025) 2 SCC
621)), a coordinate bench of this Court laid
the following principles of law with regard to
Section 319 CrPC:
“19. The principles of law as regards Section
319CrPC may be summarised as under:
19.1. On a careful reading of Section
319CrPC as well as the aforesaid two
decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court
has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person
not being the accused before it to face the
trial along with other accused persons, if the
Court is satisfied at any stage of the
proceedings on the evidence adduced that the
persons who have not been arrayed as
accused should face the trial. It is further
evident that such person even though had
initially been named in the FIR as an
accused, but not charge-sheeted, can also be
added to face the trial.
19.2. The trial court can take such a step to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:813915 CRR-375-2017
add such persons as accused only on the
basis of evidence adduced before it and not
on the basis of materials available in the
chargesheet or the case diary, because such
materials contained in the chargesheet or the
case diary do not constitute evidence.
19.3. The power of the court under Section
319CrPC is not controlled or governed by
naming or not naming of the person
concerned in the FIR. Nor the same is
dependent upon submission of the
chargesheet by the police against the person
concerned. As regards the contention that the
phrase “any person not being the accused”
occurred in Section 319 excludes from its
operation an accused who has been released
by the police under Section 169 of the Code
and has been shown in Column 2 of the
chargesheet, the contention has merely to be
stated to be rejected. The said expression
clearly covers any person who is not being
tried already by the Court and the very
purpose of enacting such a provision
like Section 319(1) clearly shows that even
persons who have been dropped by the police
during investigation but against whom
evidence showing their involvement in the
offence comes before the criminal court are
included in the said expression.
19.4. It would not be proper for the trial court
to reject the application for addition of new
accused by considering records of the
investigating officer. When the evidence of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
16 CRR-375-2017
complainant is found to be worthy of
acceptance then the satisfaction of the
investigating officer hardly matters. If
satisfaction of investigating officer is to be
treated as determinative then the purpose of
Section 319 would be frustrated.”
7.4. Recently, this Court, through one of us
(Sanjay Karol, J.), in Shiv Baran Vs. State of
U.P. 2025 INSC 860 summarised the
principles that the Court ought to keep in
mind while considering an application under
this Section. It was observed:
“15. The principles that the Trial Court ought
to follow while exercising power under this
Section are:
(a) This provision is a facet of that area of
law which gives protection to victims and
society at large, ensuring that the perpetrators
of crime should not escape the force of law;
(b) It is the duty cast upon the Court not to let
the guilty get away unpunished;
(c) The Trial Court has broad but not
unbridled power as this power can be
exercised only on the basis of evidence
adduced before it and not any other material
collected during investigation;
(d) The Trial Court is not powerless to
summon a person who is not named in the
FIR or Chargesheet; they can be impleaded if
the evidence adduced inculpates him;
(e) This power is not to be exercised in a
regular or cavalier manner, but only when
strong or cogent evidence is available thanSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:813917 CRR-375-2017
the mere probability of complicity;
(f) The degree of satisfaction required is
much stricter than the prima facie case, which
is needed at the time of framing of charge(s);
(g) The Court should not conduct a mini-trial
at this stage as the expression used is ‘such
person could be tried’ and not ‘should be
tried’.
(emphasis supplied)
12. Recently the apex court in Mohammad Kaleem Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Other 2026 INSC 251 has laid down that scrutinizing
contradiction and questioning of witnesses credibility is beyond scope of
section 319 of CrPC 1973. The relevant para- 8, 9 and 10 are being
reproduced as below:-
” 8. The Trial Court’s reasoning in rejecting
the Section 319 application, prima facie
appears to be largely aligned with the
principles laid down by this Court, such as
the requirement that evidence must be strong
and cogent rather than mere suspicion. Both
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab7 and
Neeraj Kumar v. State of UP8 emphasize that
the power under Section 319 CrPC is
extraordinary and should be exercised
sparingly. The Court must assess whether the
evidence on record, if unrebutted, reasonably
indicates the involvement of the proposed
accused.
9. At the same time, the Court has
highlighted certain limits to the Trial Court’s
discretion at Section 319 CrPC. stage.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
18 CRR-375-2017
Hardeep Singh(supra) clarified that the Court
need not establish guilt or conduct a detailed
credibility assessment at this stage, while
Neeraj Kumar (supra) held that pre-trial
scrutiny should not resemble a mintrial. The
Trial Court, in this regard appears to have
misdirected itself. In evaluating minor
contradictions between witness statements
and plausibility issues such as whether the
complainant could have avoided injury,
effectively applied a stricter standard than
necessary.
10. Another instance is that higher than
necessary standard being applied is reflected
where the Court relied on the absence of jail
records or highlighted minor discrepancies in
hospital admission or FIR details. While
these points raise valid questions about
reliability, they are not points that can be
gone into threadbare at this stage. Further, we
find the Trial Court to have erred in taking a
fragmented approach while appreciating
evidence. The Trial Court treated each
inconsistency in isolation rather than
assessing the cumulative weight of all
testimonies and circumstances. Similarly,
reliance on documentary corroboration is not
required; oral evidence alone, if credible,
may suffice. The Court’s emphasis on the
lack of jail records and the physical
plausibility of witness accounts could be seen
as exceeding the threshold scrutiny expected
at this stage. The Court overstepped theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:813919 CRR-375-2017
intended scope of pre-trial scrutiny,
overemphasized minor inconsistencies, and
did not fully consider the cumulative force of
the evidence. The law consistently balances
caution against undue summoning with the
need to ensure that potentially implicated
individuals are brought to trial when the
record, taken as a whole, reasonably supports
it.”
13. In the light of above principles where examination the correctness
and legality of the impugned order keeping in mind the challenges raised by
the revision petitioners till we are reproducing the satisfaction of trial court
for someone in the revision petitioner still whether reproducing the
satisfaction of trial court for summoning the revision petitioner as:-
" तुत करण म वचारण के अनु म म अब तक
अिभयोजन क ओर से कुल 12 सा ीगण को तुत /
पर त कया जा चुका है । इनम से घटना से संबंिधत
सा ीगण राहुल शमा (अ.सा.1), हे मे िसंह िससो दया
(अ.सा.2), वषा मजदे (अ.सा.3). अशोक (अ.सा.4),
बाबूलाल (अ.सा.5) तथा थमसूचनाकता नावेद खान
(अ.सा.10) है । इनम से सा ी नावेद खान (अ.सा.10) के
मु य पर ण के अनुसार “घटना के समय जब वह, सह र,
आ रफ हुसैन और सह र के चाचा यािसर शेवरलेट शो म
के सामने चाय क होटल पर खडे हुए थे तब यहां पर दो
मोटरसायकल आई थी. एक मोटरसायकल पर िशव पं डत
और पयुष म ट बैठे थे तथा दस ू र पर भूपे िसंह पंवार
और एक अ य य बैठे थे। पयुष भ ट और भूपे िसंह
पंवार ने आते ह सह र के दोन हाथ पकड िलये और िशव
पं डत ने उस पर गोली चला द जो सह र के िसर और गले
के बीच म लगी थी इससे सह र िगर गया था। फर वे सह र
को हॉ पटल लेकर गये जहां डॉ टर ने उसे मृत घो षत कर
दया था।” इस कार घटना के इस थम सूचनाकता सा ी
नावेद खान (अ.सा.10) ने उसके पर ण म घटना के समय
अिभयु गण िशव पं डत और पयुष भ ट क मौके पर
उप थित होना बताते हुए िशव पं डत ारा गोली मारे जाने
से सह र क मृ यु होना बताया है । इस कार इस थम
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
20 CRR-375-2017
सूचनाकता सा ी ने उसके यायालयीन पर ण म उसके
ारा सं थत थम सूचना रपोट के अनुसार कथन करते
हुए उ अिभयु गण के व कथन कये है ।
अिभयोजन क ओर से तुत अ य सा ीगण ारा भी
घटना के समय मौके पर गोली चलने क आवाज आना
बताते हुए सह र को गोली लगने और उसक मृ यु होने
संबंधी कथन कये गये है । व तुतः बारा 319 दं ड या
सं हता के अधीन यायालय को यह वचार कया जाना है
क या अपराध के वचारण के दौरान आई सा य से यह
तीत होता है क कसी य ने कोई ऐसा अपराध कया
है जसके िलये उसका अिभयु के साथ वचारण कया जा
सकता है , वहां यायालय उस य के व कायवाह
कर सकता है और प र थित अनुसार उसे िगरफ् तार या
समन कया जा सकता है । यह प है क धारा 319 दं ड
या सं हता के म पर अिभलेखगत सा य का गुण
दोष के आधार पर व तृत ववेचन आव यक नह ं है । इस
म पर केवल यह वचार कया जाना होता है क या
सा य से यह तीत हो रहा है क कसी अ य य ारा
भी ऐसा कोई अपराध कया गया है ?
अिभलेख पर उपल ध सा ी नावेद खान (अ.सा.10) के
मु य पर ण से थम या घटना थल पर ता वत
अिभयु गण िशव मं डत तथा पयुष भ ट क उप थित
और उनक अपराध म सहभािगता होना कट होती है ।
करण क थम सूचना रपोट म भी ता वत
अिभयु गण िशव पं डत तथा पयुष भ ट क मौके पर
उप थित और अपराध म उनक सहभािगता का उ लेख
है । अिभयोजन क ओर से तुत / पर त अ य
सा ीगण क प रसा य के आलोक म इस म पर
अिभयोजन सा ी नावेद खान के कथन क व सनीयता
का पर ण अ यिधक उ च तर पर कया जाना अपे त
नह ं है । इस कम पर सा ी नावेद के कथन को
वरोधाभास, वलुि य और अ य सा ीगण क प रसा य
से समथन के आधार पर पूणतः गुणदोष क कसौट पर
नह ं कसा जाना है । ता वत अिभयु गण थम सूचना
रपोट म नािमत होकर उनके व अनुसंधान जार होना
दशाया गया है । व ान पूवािधकार ारा वरिचत आरोप
प म भी ता वत अिभयु गण ारा कये गये कृ य का
प उ लेख है । ऐसी दशा म सा ी नावेद खान के कथन
के आलोक म ता वत अिभयु गण िशव पं डत और
पयुष भ ट के व थम या अपराध आरोपण
संबंधी सा य उपल ध होना कट होता है ।”
14. After the impugned order 30.01.2017 one more witness Shakti
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
21 CRR-375-2017
Singh Sattar was also examined as PW-13 on 20.06.2018. This witness was
examined to prove the memo Exhibit-P/14, P/15 and P/16 prepared on the
information of co-accused Bhupendra @ Lala, Vaibhav and Manoj and this
witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.
15. Now come to the challenges to the impugned order raised by the
revision petitioners. Arguments based on the report of STF Bhopal submitted
on 12/12/2015 through document number No.13083/2025 have no relevance
in the light of Yadwinder Singh (Supra) . So also the arguments that police
has not found any involvement of the present revision petitioners and
investigation of the police founds that complainant/author of the FIR was not
present at the time when incident took place also have no relevance.
16. Now come to the challenge based on the arguments that testimony
of other witness Rahul Sharma PW-1, Hemant Singh Sisodia PW-2, Varsha
Majde PW-3, Ashok PW-4 and Babulal Meena PW-5 does not reveals that
Naved Khan PW-10 was present at the place when Shahid was shot
specially in the light of fact that this witness have not been declared hostile
and their testimony is binding on the prosecution.
17. Record reveals that Babu Lal Meena examined as PW-5 was
declared hostile but Ashok examined as PW-4, Varsha Majde examined as
PW-3, Hemant Singh Sisodiya PW-2 and Rahul Sharma examined as PW-1
were not declared hostile. Record reveals upto examination of Ashok
examined as PW-4 the prosecution was being conducted by Additional
Public Prosecutor whereas from the witness Babulal Meena PW-5 and
thereafter prosecution was being conducted by Special Public Prosecutor
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
22 CRR-375-2017
who declared the witness Babulal Meena PW-5 and thereafter, Adarsh
Kapoor PW-6, Raju Pal PW-7 and Atif Khan PW-11 and Shakti Singh
Sattar PW-13 hostile.
18. Now the question before the court is whether cumulative weight of
all these testimony and circumstances fulfills the requirement of “strong and
cogent evidence” justifying exercise of extra ordinary and sparing power to
summon the revision petitioners as additional accused under section 319 of
Cr.P.C. 1973. Testing the present case on the above standard, we have to
keep in mind that each inconsistency is not to be seen in isolation and the
question of reliability have not to be examined at this stage.
19. The circumstances of the case are that an information was recorded
in rojnamcha No.1202 dated 15.04.2013 at 14:50 hours at Industrial Area,
Ratlam received through telephone that a person have sustained injury by
gunshot fire in the hotel of Pehalwan Baba ki Dargah Ratlam. Thereafter
disclosing the time of incident as 14:45 hours on 15.04.2013, on FIR bearing
crime number 147/2013 was lodged by Naved Khan Khan PW-10 at 17:00
hours on 15.04.2013 in which the place of incident is mentioned as in front
of Chevrolet showroom, Pehalwan Baba ki Dargah, Police Station- Industrial
Area, Ratlam and the name of the deceased is mentioned as Shaheer and
number of assailants is 4 persons including the revision petitioners Shiv
Pandit and Piyush Bhatt. The specific role of the revision petitioners is also
mentioned. There is no apparent inconsistency between the entry of the
rojnamcha No.1202 dated 15.04.2013 and FIR lodged at 17:00 hours on
15.04.2013 after taking Shaheer to hospital and declaring Shaheer as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8139
23 CRR-375-2017
dead. Circumstance is that Naved Khan and deceased Shaheer were student
and they were together due to the examination of B.Com II Semester at SSIT
College Ratlam. The death of Shaheer was reported due to cardio respiratory
failure, due to injury on brain by bullet.
20. Applying the test of “cumulative weight of the testimony”, the
perusal of testimony of Naved Khan (PW-10) including cross-examination
corroborated with the FIR and considering the above circumstances
mentioned in para-19, the order of the trial court dated 30.01.2017 does not
suffer any illegality and the revision petitioners does not succeed on the
strength of Bhagatram (supra), Krishnappa (supra), Michale
Machado (supra), and Kailash (supra). Accordingly, this revision petition is
devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
21. Copy of the order be forwarded to the trial court along with the
record of the case for necessary compliance.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
ajit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 26-03-2026
10:54:08
[ad_1]
Source link
