Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maha Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 February, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
Crl. Revision No.3568 of 2012 (O&M) -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. Crl. Revision No.3568 of 2012 (O&M)
Maha Singh and another
... Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Haryana and another
... Respondent(s)
2. Crl. Revision No.3569 of 2012 (O&M)
Surender
... Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Haryana and Others
... Respondent(s)
Date of decision: February 05, 2013.
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?.
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Shri Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with
Shri Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sandeep S. Mann, Senior Dy. Advocate General, Haryana.
Shri Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the private respondents.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
This order shall dispose of Crl. Revision No.3568 of 2012 preferred by Maha Singh and his son Jogender @ Pappu assailing the order Crl. Revision No.3568 of 2012 (O&M) -: 2 :- dated 10.10.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak whereby they have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to stand trial in case FIR No.396 dated 9.11.2010, registered at Police Station Sadar Rohtak, under Sections 307/325 IPC and 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act, and Crl. Revision No. 3569 of 2012 filed by Surender assailing another order of the same date passed by the said Court whereby it declined to summon respondents No.2 to 6 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial in a cross cross under Sections 325, 506 IPC arising out of the aforesaid FIR.
Since it is a cross case and both the parties are alleged to have sustained injuries, it appears to be a case of a free fight as admittedly ASI Narender Singh recorded the first version of the complainants in both the cases at PGIMS Rohtak in an injured condition. It is also an admitted position, as culled out from the testimony of both the rival factions, that the incident had taken place on 9.11.2010 at 6.00/6.30 A.M. The version leading to recording of FIR finds reiteration in the testimony of the complainant Bhoop Singh recorded as PW1. It would be profitable to notice the deposition of PW1 Bhoop Singh, which is as under:-
"Stated that on 8.11.2010, a Panchayat had taken place in the village regarding my property dispute with Ram Singh etc. I had won the civil case relating to the land from the civil court. Maha Singh Sarpanch abused me and my father in the Panchayat. The Panchayat was then over. The next day, at about 6.30 A.M., I had gone to the field for morning walk. When I reached the fields of Satbir s/o Ram Kishan, Maha Singh reached and proclaimed that I should be killed. Maha Singh was accompanied by Pappu, Jassu Crl. Revision No.3568 of 2012 (O&M) -: 3 :- and Surender. Surender and Jassu were armed with knives and Pappu was armed with revolved. Maha Singh armed with lathi. When Maha Singh gave lalkara, soon thereafter, Pappu fired a shot at me with his pistol which hit me on my left knee. Thereafter, I fell down. Then Surender and Jassu inflicted knife blow in my abdomen. I raised cries of bachao-bachao upon which my father and brother Kuldeep @ Nanha who were also going for walk reached the spot upon which the accused fled with their weapons and while going they threatened to kill me in future. In the course of the incident, Maha Singh also gave lathi blow to my father on his knees. I was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak by my brother Kuldeep and cousin Surjeet. I was admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak. My statement Ex.P1 was recorded by the police in PGIMS, Rohtak, which bears my signatures. Accused Surender and Jassu are present in Court."
Learned Sessions Judge relying upon the aforesaid statement which imputes specific allegations to the petitioners, summoned them to face trial. There is no denying that the occurrence has taken place and injuries have also been sustained by the complainant in view of the fact that his statement was recorded at PGIMS Rohtak. It has further come in evidence of the complainant PW1 Bhoop Singh that he had sustained a fire arm injury at knee in the occurrence at the hands of Jogender @ Pappu. And father of the complainant is alleged to have received a lathi blow on his left leg at the hands of Maha Singh. Therefore, it is imperative for the prosecution to summon said Jogender @ Pappu and Maha Singh and to try them in the light of the evidence, including the medical evidence, that may come during the course of trial. This fact assumes more importance because Crl. Revision No.3568 of 2012 (O&M) -: 4 :- a fire arm injury cannot be superficial and self suffered and, therefore, if at all it comes in evidence at a later stage that a fire arm injury has been suffered, then there is presence of of accused also at the spot.
There is no dispute as regards the ratio of law laid down in Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 75 that the court should keep in mind that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person be tried together with the accused already arraigned. Similarly, this Court is also in complete respectful agreement with the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh & Another v. State of Jharkhand, 2009(1) RCR 504, Sarabjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another, 200(3) RCR 388 and Ram Pal Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2009(2) RCR (Crl.) 131 that mere suspicion should not be the basis for exercising power Section 319 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, it is not mere suspicion but likelihood of conviction which prompted the trial court to summon the petitioners as additional accused.
As regards the other impugned order of the even date, whereby the trial court, has declined to summon additional accused to stand trial, it would be profitable to notice the deposition of complainant/injured PW1 Surender, which runs as under:-
"Stated that on 7.11.2010, there was a panchayat of 25 villages in our village Chamarian. My father was one of the members in the said panchayat. In the said panchayat, an altercation took place Crl. Revision No.3568 of 2012 (O&M) -: 5 :- between my father and Nanha son of Mahender, Bhoop son of Mahender, Narender son of Subal, Surjit son of Subal, Subal son of Duli Chand and Duli Chand son of Tulsi and all of them restrained my father from speaking in the said panchayat. Thereupon, the panchayat was over and it was decided and resolved to convene the panchayat again on 13.11.2010. On 8.11.2010, my father had gone to our fields to sow the wheat crop. In the meanwhile, Bhup Singh son of Mahender had quarrel and beaten my father Maha Singh in our fields and threatened my father not to participate in the panchayat to be held on 13.11.2010. Thereupon, we lodge a report in police station Sadar Rohtak in that connection and my father was got medico-legally examined at Civil hospital, Rohtak. On 9.11.2010, in the morning hours, at around 6.00/6.30 a.m. I and my brother Jasbir had gone to our fields for a walk and on the way, Nanha son of Mahender, Bhoop son of Mahender, Narender son of Subal, Surjit son of Subal, Subal son of Duli Chand and Duli Chand son of Tulsi were sitting near a pyao on Chamarian Sisroli road. As soon as we reached near them, they raised lalkara and all of them suddenly attacked me and my brother Jasbir and when we tried to run away, all the assailants ffired upon us, due to which, we both ducked down in fear and then attacked us with their weapons, due to which, we lost consciousness. I cannot tell as to which weapon was used by which of the accused as the attack was all of a sudden. After we regained consciousness, we gave telephonic information to our house and immediately thereafter, we again became unconscious. Thereafter, we regained consciousness in the PGIMS, Rohtak where the police had obtained my signatures on Ex.P1. Out of the Crl. Revision No.3568 of 2012 (O&M) -: 6 :- assailants, Kuldeep alias Nanha and Bhoop Singh are present in the court and the remaining are not present."
A critical analysis of both the statements recorded by the complainants in each cross case makes it crystal clear that there was presence of a lot many people from both the sides at the spot. Whereas complainant Bhoop Singh states that the assailants, who were armed with knives and revolver, way-laid him when he was all alone and inflicted injuries within the mischief of Section 307 IPC, the complainant Surender in the cross case also alleges infliction of injuries on the people of his side by the opposite party. Therefore, in the backdrop of the case, it cannot be simply presumed at this stage that Surender etc. sustained self-suffered injuries even when their side was allegedly armed with deadly weapons and as such, possibility of presence of other people from the side of Bhoop Singh cannot be brushed aside outrightly. The trial is still at the initial stage and the parties are yet to lead their evidence, therefore, innocence or complicity of the accused will be determined at trial.
In view of the above discussion, the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge whereby the petitioners Maha Singh and Jogender @ Pappu have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial is upheld and consequently Crl. Revision No.3568 of 2012 is dismissed. Similarly, the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, whereby he declined to summon respondents No.2 to 6 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial is set aside and consequently, Crl. Revision No.3569 of 2012 is allowed. The respondents No.2 to 6 are ordered to be summoned as additional accused.
Crl. Revision No.3568 of 2012 (O&M) -: 7 :-
Nothing said herein-above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not prejudice the case of either of the parties as the final outcome will be dependent on the evidence to be led by the respective parties.
[ Paramjeet Singh ] February 05, 2013. Judge kadyan