Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Kaur vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 September, 2008
Author: K. C. Puri
Bench: K. C. Puri
Criminal Revision No.1199 of 2007.
-1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Criminal Revision No.1199 of 2007.
Date of decision:24-9-2008
Jaswinder Kaur.
...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and another.
...Respondents.
...
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri.
...
Present: Ms.Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Goripuria, DAG Haryana.
...
K. C. Puri, J.
Judgment.
This is a Criminal Revision and has been directed against the order dated 8.3.2007 passed by Shri M.P.Mehandiratta, Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby the petitioner had been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C to face trial in case FIR No.67 dated 14.5.2005, under Sections 307/323/324/341 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Dabwali.
Criminal Revision No.1199 of 2007.
-2-In snippy, the prosecution story is that on 12.5.2005 at about 11.30 AM, complainant Rajesh was present in his house in village Lohgarh and was taking meals alongwith his sister Babita while his father was away to village Telipura, near Abohar (Punjab). Dayawanti, mother of the complainant went out of the house on a call and after some time, she raised cries. On hearing the cries, Rajesh as well as Babita came out and saw petitioner Jasvinder Kaur as well as her husband Gurtej Singh, Harbans Singh, father of Gurtej Singh and Sukhvinder Singh son of Bhajan Singh present there. Jasvinder Kaur petitioner caught hold of Dayawanti and Gurtej Singh gave a Gandasi blow to Dayawanti on her head whereas Sukhvinder Singh gave a Lathi blow on her neck. Harbans Singh raised a Lalkara to teach her a lesson for making a statement in the Court against them and he also gave fist blows and slaps to complainant Rajesh and Babita. Both of them raised an alarm and the accused ran away along with their respective weapons. Rajesh then arranged a vehicle and brought his injured mother to Civil Hospital, Dabwali. On getting information, the police reached there but the injured was declared unfit to make a statement. Due to serious condition, Dayawanti was referred to Civil Hospital, Sirsa. Ultimately, the police recorded the statement of Rajesh on 14.5.2005 and a case was registered against the Criminal Revision No.1199 of 2007.
-3-accused. One of the injuries on the person of Dayawanti was declared to be dangerous to life and the others were declared simple.
During the investigation, the police found Jasvinder Kaur, petitioner and Sukhvinder Singh to be innocent and did not challan them. However, accused Gurtej Singh and Harbans Singh were arrested and after completion of investigation, challan was presented against them in the Court.
Charge was accordingly framed against accused Gurtej Singh and Harbans Singh. They did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
After complainant Rajesh and Dayawanti appeared in the Court as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively and they supported the prosecution story, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was moved by the prosecution for summoning Jaswinder Kaur, petitioner and Sukhvinder Singh as accused. Sukhvinder Singh,accused, however, died.
Vide the impugned order dated 8.3.2007, the petitioner was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C, as noticed earlier.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Revision, challenging the said order dated 8.3.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa.
Criminal Revision No.1199 of 2007.
-4-Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that summoning of an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C leads to serious consequences of standing trial. The learned trial Court has wrongly summoned the petitioner. The case was thoroughly investigated and she was found innocent and was placed in column No.2. The learned trial Court has committed an error in summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C when no overt-act was attributed the petitioner. To fortify her arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authorities in cases Rajendra Singh Versus State of U.P and another, 2007(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 1022; Kailash Versus State of Rajasthan and another, 2008(2) R.C.R (Criminal) 200 and Mohd. Shafi Versus Mohd. Rafiq and another, 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 762, The learned State counsel has supported the impugned order of the learned trial Court.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and have gone through the record of the case.
The question which arises, in this case, is whether an accused named in the FIR and who has been declared innocent, during the course of investigation by the police, and the allegation against that person is that she caught hold of the injured and the other accused inflicted injuries could be summoned under Section Criminal Revision No.1199 of 2007.
-5-319 Cr.P.C. The answer to this question is in the positive. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that there is an allegation in the FIR itself that the present petitioner caught hold of Dayawanti and Gurtej Singh gave a Gandasi blow on her head whereas Sukhvinder Singh accused gave a Lathi blow on her neck. It is further mentioned in the FIR that Harbans Singh raised a Lalkara to teach her a lesson for making a statement in the Court against them and gave fist blows and slaps to complainant Rajesh and Babita. Specific part has been attributed to the petitioner that she caught hold of Dayawanti to facilitate injuries on her person by the other two co-accused. So, she has taken active part in the occurrence. Hence, in these circumstances, the order of summoning the petitioner as an accused does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.
In authority in case Rajendra Singh (supra) itself, it has been held that a person who has committed the offence and not arrayed as an accused and from the evidence on the record, it appears to the Court that the said person has committed the offence, the Court has discretion to proceed against that person.The prosecution has examined two eye witnesses who have also supported the case of the prosecution regarding involvement of the petitioner and only thereafter the impugned order has been Criminal Revision No.1199 of 2007.
-6-passed.
So far as authority in case Kailash (supra) is concerned, in that case, there was no evidence that the person sought to be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C took active part in the occurrence. However, in the present case, there is specific allegation of the prosecution that the petitioner took active part in the occurrence. So, the petitioner cannot take any benefit of the above-said authority.
Authority in case Mohd. Shafi (supra) is not helpful to the petitioner as, in that case, cross-examination of the witness examined in the Court, was not completed and it was held that it was not a complete evidence. However, in the present case, cross- examination of two witnesses has been completed and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. So, the above-said authority is also distinguishable.
Therefore, keeping in view the entire circumstances, no ground for interference is made out and consequently the present petition stands dismissed.
However, since the petitioner had been declared innocent, during the course of investigation, and she had been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C, so it is ordered that in case she appears before the trial Court, she shall be released on bail to Criminal Revision No.1199 of 2007.
-7-the satisfaction of trial Court.
Nothing observed above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
September 24th ,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge