319cr.p.c.
prashant pundhir
(Querist) 27 May 2011
This query is : Resolved
In a case of 302,307IPC,three persons was named in the fir.During investigation,i.o. deleted the names of two out of them and fild the charge sheet against one from whose fire the desease got dead .During trial PW1 to PW4 declared hostile .In the contested statements of pw5 and pw6,there came the name of the other two persons in the firing .Prosecution moved the application of 319cr.p.c.to summon the rest two persons and the disposal of that application pending .The view of high courts and supreme court is that the powers given to the court u/s 319cr.p.c. are very special and the court shall use them very carefully and only on behalf of the strong evidence against summoning persons .Just the oral evidence is not sufficient .
I request to the respectable forum members to please give there specific comments on it and make my argument easier .
Thanks .
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 27 May 2011
It can not be the law that oral evidence is not enough to use the power u/s 319. What is required is that there should be enough evidence. Pls. see the latest judgment of Zarkhand HC on this point by using the link below.
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/673927/
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 27 May 2011
During the investigation no evidence against two persons and moreover PW-1 has said nothing about those persons. there might be some personal enemity, so PW-5 & 6 are stated the names of two persons. So there is no evidence against them and mere oral evidence cannot be beleived, if they were there at the time of committing an offnece complainant could have named them, nothing in the evidence of the comdplainant.
Guest
(Expert) 27 May 2011
the court can allow the petition u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. Because the name of the persons were already found place in the FIR, Moreover the incriminating materials under the confession statement were present and prima facie prove their presence at the time of occurrence with involvement. Though P.W.1 go 4 turned hostile it will not become futile in allowing 319 of Cr.P.C.
Uma parameswaran
(Expert) 27 May 2011
Consideration of the petition under section 319 also depends upon the statment of Pw 5 and PW 6 in the said case and their relation in it.
Guest
(Expert) 27 May 2011
Dear Mr. Ganesan,
The basis of your statement "name of the persons were already found place in the FIR, Moreover the incriminating materials under the confession statement were present and prima facie prove their presence at the time of occurrence with involvement" is not understood, as on which basis you could presume about the confession statement and the names of additional two witnesses, other than PW5 & PW6, to have ALREADY found place.
I don't find any such thing in the question posed by the author. You may probably like to review your reply with reference to the question and enlighten us.
Guest
(Expert) 27 May 2011
Dear Prashant,
From your question it appears as if there were the names of 6 persons listed as PWs out of which 4 PWs were termed as hostile. But you have not mentioned whether the prosecution tried to cross-examine those 1 to 4 witnesses or not with due permission of the court and if cross-examined, with what result?
Further, if two new names appeared out of the evidence of PW5 & PW6, did you not question them why they failed to reveal those names during investigation by the I.O.?
However, now you can lodge your objection on prosecution's application about introduction of the new witnesses to be treated as mere after thought of the PW5 & PW6 as a concoted story on the point that had there been the other witnesses, at least any one of the said PW5 or PW6 could well have revealed their names during the investigation, itself, by the I.O. Their failure to bring any of those names, itself indicates that they have hired some fake professional witnesses, just to prove the case somehow or the other.
prashant pundhir
(Querist) 27 May 2011
Thanks to all of you for your responses but the SC hold in Sarabjeet Singh v/s State of Punjab,Vrindavan Das v/s State of west bengal ,Michal machado v/s c.b.i,Krishannapa v/s state of karnataka,Rajol and others v/s state of u.p. and many more the court should use the powers given u/s319 cr.p.c. very carefully and only on behalf of the very strong evidence .
In the present case the pw5 and pw6 both said in the cross examination that the time of the occurance was approx 7.30 of the month of december.So how they recognised the accused so clearly as no source of light was given .Again the accused came from there back side on bike,fired and ran away without any stop .
My question is that how they recognised the accused so clearly as the court may allow the application of 319 cr.p.c. ?
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 28 May 2011
There cannot be dispute about what the SC has laid down. The only question is whether evidence of PW 5 and 6 is so strong and enough as to act upon it for the purpose of Sec. 319. From the account of cross given you it appears prima facie that the evidence is not strong. However, one has to study the complete evidence to give positive opinion.
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 29 May 2011
From the given informations it appears to me unless the statements of PW-5 & 6 are further corroborated by other witnesses the court will not act on their evidence and shall exercise extraordinary power vested under 319 Cr.P.C.
Guest
(Expert) 01 June 2011
Dear Mr. Prashant,
If you don't mind, both of your quries go contradictory to each other. From your first query it seemed as if you wanted to oppose the introduction of the two proposed witnesses on the application of the Prosecution, while from the second query of 28th May, it seems as if you want comments of the experts on the evidence of the PW 5&6 as to how they could recognise the accused in the darkness of December night when the mrderer came from beind of the said witnesses.
I would like to suggest you to please be sure on what issue you actually want help of the experts. Mix-up of the issues may probably not help you, rather can spoil the case.
