Jeevan Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Jeevan Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Revision petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Mar 14, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/765452

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/765452
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
Decided On: Mar 14, 2002
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 403 of 2002
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Revision petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 319--Addition of accused--Trial of--Held, person to be added as accused has to be with the accused already before the Court and separate trial is not envisaged--Since the main sessions case had come to an end respondent Nos. 2 to 4 cannot be added as accused persons in that ca...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Revision petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 319

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jeevan Ram

Advocate D.D. Kalla, Public Prosecutor; Chaitanya Gehlot, Adv.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Advocate Mridul Jain, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 319
Cases Referred: Sawant Ram v. State of Rajasthan
Reported In: 2002(3)WLN508; 2002(3)WLN508

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 319--addition of accused--trial of--held, person to be added as accused has to be with the accused already before the court and separate trial is not envisaged--since the main sessions case had come to an end respondent nos. 2 to 4 cannot be added as accused persons in that case--as trial has already came to an end revision petition has become infructuous.;revision dismissed - .....prayer that respondents no. 2 to 4, namely, kama ram, smt. chothi and mohan ram be further added as additional accused and cognizance be taken against them under section 319 cr.p.c.4. that application was rejected by the learned trial judge through order dated 7.7.2000.5. aggrieved from the order dated 7.7.2000, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.6. during the course of argument, it has been submitted on behalf of the counsel for respondents no. 2 to 4 that the main sessions case in which respondents no. 2 to 4 were asked to be added as additional accused had come to an end and the judgment in that sessions case was delivered on 20.4.2001 by which the main accused persons of that case were acquitted of all the charges framed against them and thus, since today no case was pending, therefore, this revision petition has become infructuous and it be dismissed as infructuous.7. it may be stated here that against the judgment and order of'acquittal dated 20.4.2001, the state has also filed an appeal in which leave has been granted and the same is pending as s.b. criminal appeal no. 819/2001.8. the point that arises for consideration is when the main sessions case had come to an end whether respondents no. 2 to 4 can be added as additional accused on an application under section 319 cr.p.c.9. this court while deciding s.b. criminal revision petition no. 742/2001 sawant ram v. state of rajasthan on 14.2.2002 took a view that trial of persons to be added as accused has to be with the accused already before the court and separate trial is not envisaged. since main sessions case had come to an end and, therefore, question of adding these accused persons in that case after taking congnizance under section 319 cr.p.c. does not arise at all. when this being the position and trial has already come to an end, this revision petition has become infructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed.accordingly this revision petition filed by the petitioner.....

Full Judgment

Garg, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the complainant Opetitioner against the order dated 7.7.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 41/99 by which he rejected the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by which he prayed that cognizance for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. be further taken against the respondents Kama Ram, Smt. Chothi and Mohan Ram as additional accused.

2. It arises in the following circumstances :

(i) On the report of complainant- petitioner which was filed on 14.6.99 in the Police Station Nokha, Distt. Bikaner, a challan was filed against Asu Ram, Tulchha Ram and Rakma Devi for offence under Section 498-A and 304-B l.P.C. about the dowry death of Smt. Durga.

3. When the trial of that case was going on, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by P.P. with a prayer that respondents No. 2 to 4, namely, Kama Ram, Smt. Chothi and Mohan Ram be further added as additional accused and cognizance be taken against them under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

4. That application was rejected by the learned trial Judge through order dated 7.7.2000.

5. Aggrieved from the order dated 7.7.2000, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

6. During the course of argument, it has been submitted on behalf of the counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 that the main sessions case in which respondents No. 2 to 4 were asked to be added as additional accused had come to an end and the judgment in that sessions case was delivered on 20.4.2001 by which the main accused persons of that case were acquitted of all the charges framed against them and thus, since today no case was pending, therefore, this revision petition has become infructuous and it be dismissed as infructuous.

7. It may be stated here that against the judgment and order of'acquittal dated 20.4.2001, the State has also filed an appeal in which leave has been granted and the same is pending as S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 819/2001.

8. The point that arises for consideration is when the main sessions case had come to an end whether respondents No. 2 to 4 can be added as additional accused on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

9. This court while deciding S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 742/2001 Sawant Ram v. State of Rajasthan on 14.2.2002 took a view that trial of persons to be added as accused has to be with the accused already before the Court and separate trial is not envisaged. Since main sessions case had come to an end and, therefore, question of adding these accused persons in that case after taking congnizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. does not arise at all. When this being the position and trial has already come to an end, this revision petition has become infructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly this revision petition filed by the petitioner complainant is dismissed as having become infructuous.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2002 Same Parties Jeevan Ram vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Sunil Kumar Garg, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 319

Criminal Accused person Police Station On behalf of The State Has been H Res