Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jeetu @ Jitender vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 18 March, 2014
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Criminal Revision No.827 of 2014 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.827 of 2014
Date of Decision: 18th March, 2014
Jeetu @ Jitender
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr.J.S.Hooda, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
***
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C moved by the prosecution was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 307, 324 and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.215, dated 21.07.2013, registered at Police Station, Hodal, District Palwal.
Learned counsel contends that at the time of lodging of the First Information Report by the brother of the injured, no specific role was assigned to the petitioner; that after 5 days of the occurrence, statement of Devender was recorded wherein he disclosed the name of the petitioner to the police and further stated that out of the four two blows from knife were caused by him (petitioner). The matter was inquired into twice by the senior police officers and nothing incriminating had emerged against the Sharma Seema 2014.03.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.827 of 2014 [2] petitioner, therefore, he was declared innocent and placed in column No.2.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the material available on record.
There were total four sharp edged injuries on the person of the injured-Laxman (PW1) out of which, two were attributed to the petitioner. The medical record corroborates the oral version of the injured-witness. At this stage, there is sufficient evidence to summon the petitioner to face trial for the offences for which he has been summoned by the court below, therefore, no good ground is made out for this Court to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned trial court.
Dismissed.
March 18, 2014 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi)
seema Judge
Sharma Seema
2014.03.21 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh