Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 February, 2013
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
CRR-3792 of 2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-3792 of 2012 (O&M).
Date of decision: February 15, 2013.
Lakhbir Singh
..... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
PRESENT: Mr.K.S.Bassi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Ankur Jain, AAG., Punjab.
M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL).
Petitioner Lakhbir Singh is facing trial for an offence under Section 304-B IPC in one challan and under Section 302/304-B IPC in another challan on different accusations. Parents of the petitioner have also been summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., in a case under Section 304-B IPC. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the trial Court deferring adjudication of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner to summon Dharmpal and Dr Remu Raina as accused.
It will not be out of place to observe here that Dharampal is nephew of the complainant Gurjant Singh, father of Kiranjit Kaur deceased who was married to the petitioner. The .1 CRR-3792 of 2012 (O&M) defence of the petitioner in the criminal trial is that it is Dharampal nephew (sister's son) of complainant who had actually killed the deceased Kiranjit Kaur as she had extra marital relations with him. It is also the defence of the petitioner that the deceased had been taken by Dharampal to his Nursing Home at Samana and there exists documentary evidence regarding she having been taken to said Nursing Home.
In nutshell, the claim of the petitioner is that it was Dharampal who had actually committed the murder of Kiranjit Kaur and had later concocted a story which has been put forth by his uncle Gurjant Singh, father of Kiranjit Kaur, to falsely implicate the petitioner.
The petitioner moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., on the basis of statement of DW.8 Swaran Singh produced in defence by him, who had stated on oath that it was Dharampal who had strangulated the deceased while she was in her matrimonial home and had taken her to his Nursing Home where Dr.Remu Raina declared her to be dead.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is prima facie strong case made out on the basis of defence evidence produced by the petitioner indicating that Dharampal and Dr.Remu Raina had been responsible for the murder of Kiranjit Kaur. Faced with above said peculiar circumstances, the Additional Sessions Judge has passed an order dated 30.10.2012 observing that .2 CRR-3792 of 2012 (O&M) adjudication of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., would tantamount to pronouncing the judgment against the accused. As an abundant caution, the learned Judge has deferred the decision on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the application on behalf of the accused to summon some additional accused on the basis of evidence brought on the record is permissible. He has referred to case law in support of his contention.
There is no dispute that an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., can be allowed on the basis of an application filed by the accused on the basis of the material produced before the Court. But in the present case the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has been filed on the basis of the statement of a defence witness i.e., DW.8 Swaran Singh who has been produced either to impeach the credibility of the witnesses produced by the prosecution or to establish the defence of the petitioner that the murder has been caused by Dharampal.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Dharampal was cited as a witness but he was given up by the prosecution agency with an oblique motive.
In the present case defence has been sought to be established by summoning prosecution witnesses in defence given up by the prosecution agency in the supplementary challan.
Taking into consideration the facts and
.3
CRR-3792 of 2012 (O&M)
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court is required to form an opinion on the basis of the evidence brought on the record by the petitioner accused in defence whether Dharampal and Dr.Remu Raina, are to be summoned as additional accused. Allowing of the said application will tantamount to prima facie believing the defence of the accused-petitioner which exercise is to be taken at the time of final adjudication. Every case has got peculiar circumstances and has to be adjudicated upon depending upon the circumstances existing. There are certain parameters laid down for summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by different judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as this Court. The trial Court in the present case has rightly deferred the adjudication of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. because the claim of the petitioner accused is based upon the evidence produced by him in defence.
I have also considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision for deferring the adjudication of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is apt to mention here that rules are handmade of justice. The petitioner being an accused has sought summoning of additional accused on the basis of defence evidence produced by him. The novel exercise by the petitioner would attract novel orders. No illegality is found in the order.
No ground is made out to interfere in the order .4 CRR-3792 of 2012 (O&M) deferring the adjudication of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Dismissed.
Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the rights of the petitioner to avail any other legal remedy available to him in accordance with law.
(M.M.S. BEDI)
February 15, 2013 JUDGE
rka
.5