Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Singh @ Ashok Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:15151]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 473 of 2024
Ashok Singh @ Ashok Kumar Singh, Aged about 29
Years, S/o Shukar Singh, Resident of village - Bhondo,
Bharatpur, P.O. & P.S. Chandwara, Dist.- Koderma
...... Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Jharkhand
2. Kouleshwar Saw Aged about 37 Years S/o – Rameshwar
Saw, Resident of village – Chourahi, P.O. & P.S.-
Chandwara, District – Koderma
….. Opposite Parties
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren , Adv.
Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra , Adv.
Ms. Preeti Hembrom , Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. PP
Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl. PP
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with a prayer
for quashing the common order dated 23.09.2023 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Koderma in connection with
S.T. Nos. 122 of 2017 , 19 of 2018 and 77 of 2019, and arrayed the
petitioner as an accused of the case under Section 319 of CrPC.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was an accused of
Chandwara P.S. case no. 25 of 2017 involving the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 148, 149, 323, 379, 302, 34 of the
IPC. The petitioner was not sent up for trial by the police after
investigation of the case, as he was found to be innocent but
police submitted charge sheet against the co-accused persons,
who faced the trial. During the trial, most of the prosecution
1 Cr.M.P. No. 473 of 2024
[2025:JHHC:15151]
witnesses consistently stated about the involvement and presence
of the petitioner, at the place of occurrence. Learned Additional
Sessions Judge I, Koderma keeping in view the evidence on
record, regarding the involvement of the petitioner, particularly,
the evidence of PW 5 and 6 namely Badri Sao and Arjun Sao, who
have categorically stated that the petitioner was assaulting the
deceased, along with others, resulting in the death of the deceased
– Rameshwar Sao; formed an opinion that the petitioner has
committed the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149,
323, 307, 325, 302 of IPC and directed for issuance of summons to
the petitioner.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is
no specific allegation against the petitioner, even in the deposition
of PW5 and 6, made in S.T. No. 122 of 2017. It is next submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and he was in a marriage
programme at the time of occurrence. Relying upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shankar vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
730, para 16 of which reads as under :-
“16 The degree of satisfaction required to exercise power under
Section 319 Cr. P.C. is well settled after the above-referred
decision. The evidence before the trial court should be such that if it
goes unrebutted, then it should result in the conviction of the
person who is sought to be summoned. As is evident from the
above-referred decision, the degree of satisfaction that is required to
exercise power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. is much stricter,
considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power.
Only when the evidence is strong and reliable, can the power be
exercised. It requires much stronger evidence than mere probability
of his complicity.” (Emphasis supplied)submits that the degree of satisfaction that is required to
exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is much stricter,
considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power
and even though the evidence is not strong and reliable, still
learned Additional Sessions Judge I, has committed a grave
illegality by exercising the power under Section 319 of CrPC, by
arraying the petitioner as an accused. Hence, it is submitted that2 Cr.M.P. No. 473 of 2024
[2025:JHHC:15151]the prayer as prayed for in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition, be allowed.
5. Learned Spl. P.P appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that
PW 5 and 6 have categorically stated that the petitioner assaulted
the deceased along with the co-accused persons, which ultimately
resulted in the death of the deceased and if this part of evidence if
remains unrebutted, the same is sufficient in securing the
conviction of the petitioner. It is next submitted that beside the
PW5 and 6, other prosecution witnesses examined in this case,
have also stated directly about the involvement of the petitioner
in commission of the alleged offences. It is next submitted that as
on the basis of this self-same evidence, undisputedly, the co-
accused persons, have already been convicted inter alia for the
offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Thus the
evidence is both strong and reliable. It is then submitted that no
illegality has been committed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, in arraying the petitioner as an accused, in exercise of the
power under Section 319 of the CrPC. In support of his
contention, learned Special PP relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Omi @ Omkar
Rathore and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
(2025) 2 SCC 621, para 19 of which reads as under :-
”19. The principles of law as regards Section 319 CrPC may be
summarised as under:
19.1. On a careful reading of Section 319 CrPC 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 add such persons as
accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on
the basis of materials available in the charge-sheet or the case diary,
because such materials contained in the charge-sheet 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 in3 Cr.M.P. No. 473 of 2024
[2025:JHHC:15151]the FIR. Nor the same is dependent upon submission of the charge-
sheet 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 charge-sheet, 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 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.”
6. It is lastly submitted by learned Special PP that as the order
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, I, Koderma do not
suffer from any illegality, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to
mention here that perusal of the record reveals that PW 5 and 6 of
S.T. case no. 122 of 2017, have categorically stated about the
petitioner along with the co-accused persons, having assaulted the
deceased, which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased –
Rameshwar Saw. Under such circumstances, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that the evidence which came during trial,
through PW5 and 6 , as well as other witnesses examined in this
case by the prosecution, if goes unrebutted, then it should result
in conviction of the petitioner.
8. Therefore, this Court, do not find any illegality in the common
order dated 23.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge- I, Koderma in connection with S.T. Nos. 122 of 2017 , 19 of
2018 and 77 of 2019, by which, the petitioner has been arrayed as
an accused of the case; in exercise of power under Section 319 of
CrPC and has issued summon to him.
4 Cr.M.P. No. 473 of 2024
[2025:JHHC:15151]
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 10th June, 2025
Smita /AFR
5 Cr.M.P. No. 473 of 2024