Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from Criminal Revision Application No. 163 of 2026 before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, challenging an order passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Nagpur below Exh.68 dated 11.08.2025 in Special Criminal (Child) Case No.133 of 2023. The applicant accused had filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to implead Aaryan and the owner and manager of Raj Lodge as additional accused in the case. The trial court partly allowed the application, adding the owner and manager of Raj Lodge as accused under Section 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, but rejected the prayer to implead Aaryan. The accused filed the revision challenging the rejection of impleadment of Aaryan. The factual background involved a POCSO case where the prosecutrix-victim was allegedly brought to Raj Lodge by Aaryan, where sexual assault was then committed upon her. The accused relied on the supplementary statement of the prosecutrix dated 22.01.2023, which allegedly specifically stated the role of Aaryan in bringing her to the lodge. The accused also pointed to the cross-examination of the investigating officer, where a portion marked 'A' was elicited showing that the victim had narrated the role of Aaryan in bringing her to the lodge. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the trial court failed to apply its mind and exercise discretion under Section 319 CrPC by rejecting the prayer without cogent reasons. The State opposed the revision, contending that the trial court had considered the entire record, chargesheet, depositions of prosecution witnesses, and cross-examination before concluding that there was not even a whisper of the role of Aaryan in the crime. The State also raised a preliminary objection that an application under Section 319 CrPC at the behest of an accused was not maintainable, though the trial court had entertained it and partly allowed it. The High Court examined the impugned order, the statements under Section 161 CrPC dated 20.01.2023 and 22.01.2023, and the deposition of the prosecutrix. It observed that the prosecutrix did not state any role of Aaryan in her deposition. The court held that merely on the basis of cross-examination of the investigating officer, the trial court could not have impleaded Aaryan as an accused, because Section 319 CrPC requires that it should appear from the evidence that a person not accused has committed an offence. On maintainability, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh, which held that power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised suo motu or on an application by someone including accused already before it if satisfied that any person other than accused has committed an offence. Thus, the application at the behest of the accused was maintainable and rightly entertained by the trial court. The High Court found no error apparent on the face of the record or any material irregularity in the trial court's exercise of discretion under Section 319 CrPC. It held that the evidence brought on record was insufficient to implead Aaryan as an accused, and the trial court rightly rejected the application. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed and the impugned order was maintained.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Addition of Accused - Maintainability of Application under Section 319 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319 - The Supreme Court in Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh held that power under Section 319 of the Code can be exercised by the Court suo motu or on an application by someone including accused already before it if satisfied that any person other than accused has committed an offence. In the present case, the objection of the State that an application under Section 319 at the behest of an accused was not maintainable was rejected. Held that such an application was maintainable and rightly entertained by the trial Court (Paras 11-12). B) Criminal Procedure - Addition of Accused - Evidence Required for Impleadment under Section 319 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319 - For impleading a person not accused, it must appear from evidence that such person has committed an offence; satisfaction must be based on evidence brought on record. The prosecutrix's deposition did not state any role of proposed accused Aaryan; mere admission by investigating officer in cross-examination that victim had narrated role of Aaryan in supplementary statement was insufficient. The trial Court recorded there was no whisper of role of accused Aaryan and rejected the prayer. Held that trial Court rightly exercised discretion under Section 319 and no error apparent or material irregularity was committed; revision dismissed (Paras 8-10, 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the behest of an accused is maintainable; whether the trial court erred in rejecting the prayer to implead Aaryan as an accused under Section 319 CrPC based on evidence on record.
Final Decision
Criminal Revision Application dismissed. Impugned order dated 11.08.2025 below Exh.68 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Court, Nagpur maintained as just and proper; no error apparent or material irregularity in exercise of discretion under Section 319 CrPC.
Law Points
- Under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- court can proceed against any person not accused if it appears from evidence that such person has committed an offence
- power can be exercised suo motu or on application by someone including accused already before it
- satisfaction must be based on evidence brought on record
- mere cross-examination of investigating officer admitting victim's earlier statement about role of proposed accused is insufficient when prosecutrix's deposition does not state such role
- revisional jurisdiction should not be exercised unless error apparent on face of record or material irregularity in trial court's exercise of discretion
