State Of Haryana vs Suresh @ Pappu
- SCC OnLine2011 SCC OnLine SC 451
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a prosecution application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks to add a person as an accused during trial on the basis of a witness's statement that clearly and categorically identifies that person's involvement in the crime and establishes motive, the High Court is not justified in quashing such application without having due regard to the prima facie case reflected in that statement.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
STATE OF HARYANA ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
SURESH @ PAPPU ... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.08.2009 in Criminal Revision No.2217 of 2008, has quashed the application of the Prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The State of Haryana, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, has approached this Court by filing this Special Leave Petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has drawn our attention to the statement of Prosecution Witness No.3-Dharambir, S/o.Tarkha Ram. In that statement it is clearly stated that "my brother was murdered by Suresh and Sombir". In the statement it is also indicated that "Suresh got 7.5 acres of land of Sombir sold by misguiding him and serving liquor. Whenever Sombir used to ask him to pay money, he used to promise to give next day or thereafter.
Thereafter, we insisted upon Suresh to give money". This clearly reflect the motive for committing the crime.
: 2 :
5. In view of this clear and categoric statement of P.W.NO.3-
Dharambir, the High Court was not justified in quashing the Prosecution Application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning Suresh @ Pappu.
6. Consequently, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court passed in Criminal Revision No.2217 of 2008. Whatever has been observed by us in this order is only confined to adjudication of this petition which should not prejudice the accused in any manner in the trial.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
...................J.
(DALVEER BHANDARI)
...................J.
(DEEPAK VERMA)
NEW DELHI;
9TH MARCH, 2011
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free