Vibha Devi Vs. State of Punjab and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1137232
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnApr-07-2014
AppellantVibha Devi
RespondentState of Punjab and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh criminal revision no.941 of 2013 date of decision : april 07, 2014 vibha devi .....petitioner versus state of punjab and others .....respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice t.p.s.mann present : mr.c.l.verma, advocate for the petitioner. mr.navdeep singh, assistant advocate general, punjab for respondent no.1-state. mr.naveen sharma, advocate for respondents no.2 and 3. t.p.s.mann, j. (oral) the petitioner, who is mother of the prosecutrix, has filed the present revision under section 401 cr.p.c.for challenging the order dated 11.1.2013 passed by additional sessions judge, ludhiana whereby application of the prosecution under section 319 cr.p.c.for summoning respondents no.2 and 3 as additional accused was declined. it is true that in the fir registered at the instance of the petitioner, respondents no.2 and 3 were not arraigned as accused. however, during investigation of criminal revision no.941 of 2013 -2- the case, it surfaced that respondents no.2 and 3 had played active part in forcing the prosecutrix to enter the room with gurpreet singh where she was sexually assaulted by him, thereafter. further, in her statement made before the trial court as pw1, the prosecutrix mentioned about the role of respondents no.2 and 3 as under :- “over, there, the mother of gurpreet namely manjit and his sister priya were already present there. the mother and the sister of the accused asked the accused to take me inside his room, accused took me inside the room. the mother and the sister of the accused namely manjit and priya closed my mouth. the accused disrobed me and remove my entire clothes. thereafter, gurpreet the accused committed rape forcibly against my will and without my consent. thereafter the mother manjit and sister priya of the accused bolted me inside the room. after about 3 hours.they pushed me out of the house and threatened me with dire consequences in case i narrated qua the incident to anybody, and then they would liquidate my mother, father and other family members.”. at the stage of considering the application under criminal revision no.941 of 2013 -3- section 319 cr.p.c., it is not to be seen as to whether the material collected by the prosecution is sufficient to warrant conviction of the persons to be summoned as additional accused. only prima facie the evidence has to be considered to find out as to whether the same points towards the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime or not. when the prosecutrix has specifically deposed before the trial court that respondents no.2 and 3 had played active role in the commission of crime, they are required to be summoned under section 319 cr.p.c.as additional accused to face the trial of the case. resultantly, the petition is accepted, impugned order dismissing the application under section 319 cr.p.c.is set aside and respondents no.2 and 3 are, hereby, ordered to be summoned under section 319 cr.p.c.( t.p.s.mann ) april 07, 2014 judge satish satish kumar 2014.04.11 15:35 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.941 of 2013 Date of Decision : April 07, 2014 Vibha Devi .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr.C.L.Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Navdeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1-State.

Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

T.P.S.MANN, J.

(Oral) The petitioner, who is mother of the prosecutrix, has filed the present revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C.for challenging the order dated 11.1.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby application of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C.for summoning respondents No.2 and 3 as additional accused was declined.

It is true that in the FIR registered at the instance of the petitioner, respondents No.2 and 3 were not arraigned as accused.

However, during investigation of Criminal Revision No.941 of 2013 -2- the case, it surfaced that respondents No.2 and 3 had played active part in forcing the prosecutrix to enter the room with Gurpreet Singh where she was sexually assaulted by him, thereafter.

Further, in her statement made before the trial Court as PW1, the prosecutrix mentioned about the role of respondents No.2 and 3 as under :- “Over, there, the mother of Gurpreet namely Manjit and his sister Priya were already present there.

The mother and the sister of the accused asked the accused to take me inside his room, accused took me inside the room.

The mother and the sister of the accused namely Manjit and Priya closed my mouth.

The accused disrobed me and remove my entire clothes.

Thereafter, Gurpreet the accused committed rape forcibly against my will and without my consent.

Thereafter the mother Manjit and sister Priya of the accused bolted me inside the room.

After about 3 houRs.they pushed me out of the house and threatened me with dire consequences in case I narrated qua the incident to anybody, and then they would liquidate my mother, father and other family members.”

.

At the stage of considering the application under Criminal Revision No.941 of 2013 -3- Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is not to be seen as to whether the material collected by the prosecution is sufficient to warrant conviction of the persons to be summoned as additional accused.

Only prima facie the evidence has to be considered to find out as to whether the same points towards the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime or not.

When the prosecutrix has specifically deposed before the trial Court that respondents No.2 and 3 had played active role in the commission of crime, they are required to be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.as additional accused to face the trial of the case.

Resultantly, the petition is accepted, impugned order dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.is set aside and respondents No.2 and 3 are, hereby, ordered to be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.( T.P.S.MANN ) April 07, 2014 JUDGE satish Satish Kumar 2014.04.11 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh