Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Ram vs State Of Haryana on 23 October, 2013
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Rev. No. 1387 of 2013 -1-
IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Rev. No. 1387 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.10.2013
Hari Ram ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Ritu Bahri, J Crl. Misc. No.22813 of 2013 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 17 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.
Application stands disposed of.
Crl. Rev. No. 1387 of 2013(O&M) Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 8.1.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused, has been allowed.
On 18.12.2010, Dharam Pal/complainant made a complaint that on 17.12.2010, his son Suresh had gone to attend his duty on his motor cycle bearing No.HR-29-S-3614. Thereafter on 18.12.2010, an information was received by the complainant that dead body of Suresh was lying in front of the house of Satish alias Babli, which was situated in Daulat Colony. When he went on the spot, he found that there were injuries on the forehead, nose and head of Suresh.
Crl. Rev. No. 1387 of 2013 -2-
After investigation, Satish alias Babli, his wife Sarita and Joginder were challaned for committing the murder of Suresh and final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C was filed against them.
Thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was moved for summoning petitioner-Hari Ram along with Chandi Ram as additional accused. This application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 1.10.2011 (Annexure P-2). Revision filed by the complainant was allowed by this Court vide order dated 8.8.2012 (Annexure P-3) and the petitioner was ordered to be summoned to face trial in the present FIR as an additional accused. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and finally his appeal was allowed vide order dated 15.10.2012 by remanding the case back to trial Court to pass fresh order after considering all the evidence. While allowing the SLP, the statments of various accused under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and examination-in-chief of Gulshan, PW1 had been considered, and a direction was given to the trial Court to consider the application afresh on the basis of evidence recorded till date without being influenced by any judgement and order passed by any Court. The trial Court vide order dated 8.1.2013 has allowed the application under Section 319 Cr. P.C., which is subject matter of challenge in this petition.
Heard counsel for the parties.
Gulshan is the only eye witness of the incident which took place on 17.12.2010. When Suresh, who was his cousin did not come home he went around to look for him. He went to the house of Mahesh as Suresh was on visiting term with him. At 4.30-5.00 a.m., he reached there Crl. Rev. No. 1387 of 2013 -3- and noticed that Suresh was being assaulted by Satish, his wife or Hari Ram, Advocate, Chandi and one or two more by means of lathies, road and bricks. He attempted to intervene, then those persons rushed towards him. But being alone, he rushed towards the police station, City Ballabgarh and reached there at about 6/6.30 a.m. and he was told to bring some responsible persons from the village by the Clerk in the police station. He then went towards his house and he was informed by his uncle Dharampal that Suresh had already died. He again went to the spot at 8.30 a.m., where the incident has taken place. Thereafter, his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was also recorded to the same effect. He was cross-examined partly on 6.6.2011 in which he stated that he came outside the house of the Satish, he saw that Suresh was being assaulted and this was lasted for about 2-3 minutes within his sight. The distance of Police Station Ballabgarh City was 4-5 kms from that place. Finally his cross-examination concluded on 12.12.2011(Annexure P-8). In his cross-examination, he has given details of mobile No.9999076142, which was in his possession and from where he made telephone calls to persons including Chaman, Uttam and his sister Seema. He specifically denied that he was in service in Gurgaon at the time of incident. The statement made by Gulshan on 12.12.2011, had to be considered as per the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when the SLP was allowed vide order dated 15.10.2012. Cross-examination of complainant-Dharampal as PW-3 was concluded on 12.12.2011 (Annexure P-9). As per his deposition, on 18.12.2010, he was informed at about 6/6.30 a.m by his neighbour Chaman that dead body of Suresh was lying in Daulat Colony near the house of Satish. When he went to the spot at about 6.30/7.00 a.m., he saw dead body of Suresh with injuries thereon which was Crl. Rev. No. 1387 of 2013 -4- bleeding. Some persons including Satish, Hari, wife of Satish, Chandi etc. were standing there. Gulshan also came there subsequently and informed him that they had killed Suresh. Police came there at about7.30/8.00 a.m. As per his cross-examination, the distance of the house of Dharampal from the spot, where the dead body was lying, was 10 kms.
After going through the cross-examination of Gulshan and Dharampal, which concluded on 12.12.2011 and as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this evidence has to be assessed. It was sufficient to summon the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. As per the deposition of Gulshan, he has given the number of mobile, which was in his possession on that day. From that mobile, he had informed Chaman, Uttam and his sister Seema at 6.30 a.m. It was the same time when complainant Dharampal informed by his neighbour Chaman that his son was lying in the serious condition outside the house of Satish. This part of the deposition of Gulshan, does not render his testimony doubtful as it was Dharampal, who after receiving information from his neighbour Chaman on telephone had gone to the spot to look for his son at about 6.30 am. Therefore, the presence of Gulshan at the spot no longer remains doubtful. Moreover, Dharampal on reaching the spot saw Satish, Hari, wife of Satish, Chandi etc. were standing there. Gulshan while deposing as PW-1 has stated that Suresh was being assaulted by Satish, his wife, Hari Ram, Advocate and Chandi and one or two more by means of lathies and bricks. Thereafter, statement of Gulshan under Section 161 Cr.P.C was also recorded to the same effect. Therefore, the presence of Gulshan being an eye witness is not dobutful. There are sufficient evidence after conclusion of cross- examination of both Dharampal and Gulshan that he was present at the spot Crl. Rev. No. 1387 of 2013 -5- and there was specific role, which was attributed to the present petitioner Hari Ram that he had inflincted injuries on Suresh.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Suraj alias Suraj Singh & anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 504, has held that a person cannot be summoned to face trial on the basis of strong suspicion. In Ram Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009(1) Crimes (SC) 294, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal. In the said case, an application filed by the respondent under Section 319 Cr.P.C, before the trial Court was dismissed but the criminal revision was allowed by this Court and accused/appellants were summoned to face trial under Sections 307/302 read with Section 120-B IPC, after recording the evidence of PW-1, where he had named the persons, who were involved in the incident causing death of the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP has observed as under:-
"17. In the instant case, although, the appellants were named in the F.I.R., they were not named as accused in the charge- sheet during the trial. However, P.W.1 in his evidence, has named the appellants as persons who were involved in the incident causing the death of Brijesh Kumar Singh and injuries to Manvender Singh. Despite the above, the trial Court, on two separate occasions, rejected the prayer made by the Respondent No.2 for summoning the appellants herein under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The High Court, after considering the evidence of P.W.1, Kamlesh Singh, thought it necessary for the appellants to be summoned."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brindaban Das Vs. State of West Bengal 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 672, has held that even if the proceedings against an accused were quashed, he can be summoned to face Crl. Rev. No. 1387 of 2013 -6- trial in the proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C., if the Court is satisfied that the case for taking cognizance against him has been made out on the basis of additional evidence led before it. The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:-
"12. Mr. Ghosh finally referred to the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rastogi, 1983 (1) RCR (Criminal) 73 : [1983 (1) SCC 1], which is one of the earlier cases where the scope of Section 319 had been dealt with and thereafter followed in the subsequent cases, wherein it had been observed as follows:-
"In these circumstances, therefore, if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence which satisfies the Court that the other accused or those who have not been arrayed as accused against whom proceedings have been quashed have also committed the offence Court can take cognizance against them and try them along with the other accused. But, we would hasten to add that this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. More than this we would not like to say anything further at this stage. We leave the entire matter to the discretion of the Court concerned so that it may act according to law. We would, however, make it plain that the mere fact that the proceedings have been quashed against respondents 2 to 5 will not prevent the Court from exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognizance against them has been made out on the additional evidence led before it.' In the present case, the statment made by Gulshan as PW-1 is the basis for conducting a fair investigation and the accused have been found guilty and challaned. He has not been specifically named the petitioner in the FIR. Moreover, his deposition in the cross-examination confirms the allegations made out in the FIR as well as in the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, no ground is made out to Crl. Rev. No. 1387 of 2013 -7- interfere in the impugned order.
Dismissed.
23.10.2013 ( RITU BAHRI )
monika JUDGE
Verma Monika
2013.10.28 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh