Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devender Singh @ Billu vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 13 September, 2017
Author: A. B. Chaudhari
Bench: A. B. Chaudhari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRL. REVISION No.3475 OF 2016
DATE OF DECISION : 13 SEPTEMBER, 2017
Devender Singh @ Billu
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. B. CHAUDHARI
****
Present : Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 11.
****
A. B. CHAUDHARI, J.
This is a petition filed by the complainant for challenging
order dated 23.08.2016 passed by the trial Court dismissing the
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the additional
accused.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
In support of the petition learned counsel for the petitioner at
the outset submitted that he would not press the present petition in the
matter of summoning the accused persons i.e. respondents No.2 to 9
under Section 319 Cr.P.C.. However he submits that he is pressing for
exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. qua respondent No.10 and
11 namely Vinod and Mohan.
The statement of counsel for the petitioner is accepted.
Accordingly the petition qua respondents No.2 to 9 stands dismissed as
not pressed.
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 18-09-2017 03:51:27 :::
CRL. REVISION No.3475 OF 2016
-2-
He then submitted that insofar as Vinod and Mohan are
concerned, there is overt act attributed to them before the Court below
when evidence was recorded during the trial Court. The specific role was
attributed to them but the trial Court did not give any reason for not
accepting the plea for summoning them. According to him the specific
role attributed to them is such that the parameters laid down by the
Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh versus
State of Punjab and others, 2014(3) SCC 92 and therefore, he prayed
for allowing the petition.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondents vehemently
opposed the petition and submitted that there is a contradiction and
discrepancy in the FIR and the deposition made before the Court in the
matter of these proposed two accused persons and therefore, the trial
Court has rightly rejected the application for exercising power under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. against them. He further submitted that the
parameters laid down in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) are not
satisfied. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
I have gone through the impugned order as well as the
evidence of Devender @ Billu PW-1 i.e. the petitioner and have also
gone through the first information report. The relevant portion of the
evidence of the witness i.e. the petitioner about Vinod and Mohan is
reproduced as under:
"Thereafter, Sheo Ram gave a hockey blow on my
head and hockey was broken, as result of which, I
had suffered injuries in my head. Thereafter, Mohan
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 18-09-2017 03:51:28 :::
CRL. REVISION No.3475 OF 2016
-3-
brought a rifle from car and handed it over to
Rajender, then Rajender handed over the same to
Sheo Ram and asked him to fire a shot upon Billu
Sarpanch and kill him. Meanwhile, Vinod son of
Ajmer Singh also fired a shot upon me from his
revolver. I saved myself by sitting on the ground.
Thereafter, Sheo Ram pointed out his rifle upon me
and I moved myself back about 8-9 steps.
Thereafter, Risala stated that fired a shot upon Billu
Sarpanch so that he be killed. Sheo Ram fired a shot
upon me with intent to kill me which hit on left side
of my stomach below chest."
The above evidence to my mind clearly satisfies the
ingredients required by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case
of Hardeep Singh (supra). It is seen that Vinod son of Ajmer Singh
fired a shot upon him (petitioner) from his rifle but he saved himself by
sitting on the ground. Insofar as Mohan is concerned the only evidence is
that he had brought a rifle from the car and handed over to Rajender.
To conclude, insofar as Mohan is concerned there is no role
attributed to him regarding any actual assault and therefore the petition
against Mohan will have to be rejected.
Insofar as Vinod is concerned, there is direct attribution to
him, which is seen from the above evidence that he has fired a shot on
witness-Devender.
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 18-09-2017 03:51:28 :::
CRL. REVISION No.3475 OF 2016
-4-
In that view of the matter, the prayer made by the petitioner,
only against respondent No.10-Vinod, would succeed and insofar as
another respondent i.e. respondent No.11-Mohan is concerned the same
will have to be dismissed. In the result, I make the following order:
ORDER
(i) CRL. REVISION No.3475 OF 2016 is partly allowed.
(ii) The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondent No.10-Vinod is allowed.
(iii) The petition against respondent No.11-Mohan is dismissed.
(iv) The petition against respondents No.2 to 9 stands dismissed as not pressed.
13 SEPTEMBER, 2017 (A. B. CHAUDHARI)
'raj' JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No
Whether Reportable: Yes No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 18-09-2017 03:51:28 :::