Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karamjit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 12 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:088846
CRR-340-2022 (O&M) -1-
239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
2024:PHHC:88846
CRR-340-2022
Date of Decision:- 12.07.2024
KARAMJIT SINGH AND ORS ....Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CORAM:-HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:- Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ranjit Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the
complainant/respondent.
*****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (Oral)
1. Karamjit Singh and others have filed revision petition against impugned order dated 22.11.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide which Mandeep Singh @ Mani, Gursewak Singh, Dashmesh Singh, Karamjit Singh and Soni Singh @ Amritpal Singh have been summoned under Sections 148, 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 341 and 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Baldev Singh, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Ealwal gave his statement to the police that on 19.05.2019 he was going towards school for casting vote in parliamentary elections. At about 10.30 am when he reached in front of Gurudwara Sahib of their 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2024 20:13:47 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:088846 CRR-340-2022 (O&M) -2- village, his friends Mandeep Singh son of Karam Singh, Baljinder Singh @ Goda, Harbans Singh son of Sadhu Singh were sitting under tree. On seeing him, they called him and stated that they will also go along with him to cast vote. In the meantime from the side of Bann Wali street he saw his co-villager Sukhwinder Singh @ Dofli, Kaka Singh and Amritpal Singh coming on scooter. Three more vehicles came and stopped near him i.e. one white coloured Fortuner with last No.T-5880 and one white coloured Scorpio last No.3030 and one white coloured Bolero last No.6901. Shingara Singh armed with iron dah, Kulwinder Singh armed with gandasa, Bharat Singh armed with iron sword, Soni Singh son of Nikka Singh, Dashmesh Singh armed with iron rods, Manbir Singh, Mandeep Singh @ Mani, Karamjit Singh, Harpreet Singh, Gursewak Singh armed with sticks along with 4 to 5 unknown persons, got down from said three vehicles. Lalkara was raised by Sukhwinder Singh @ Dofli. Aforesaid persons attacked him and his friends Sukhwinder Singh @ Dofli is attributed iron dah blow on the head of Harbans Singh with an intention to kill him. Other accomplices of Sukhwinder Singh @ Dofli encircled Mandeep Singh and Kulwinder Singh gave blow with gandasa on the head of Baljinder Singh @ Goda with intention to kill him. Shingara Singh gave iron dah blow to Mandeep Singh which hit on his back. Bharat Singh gave sword blow towards the head of Mandeep Singh which landed on his left arm. Other persons gave blows with iron rods, sticks and gave beating to Mandeep Singh, Harbans Singh and Baljinder Singh @ Goda. On the alarm raised by them, people started gathering there and the said persons escaped from the spot along with their weapons in the aforesaid vehicles. He noticed that Sukhwinder Singh @ Dofli was also 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2024 20:13:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:088846 CRR-340-2022 (O&M) -3- armed with fire arm. The injured were taken to Hospital as a result present FIR was registered.
3. It is matter of record that after completion of investigation Kulwinder Singh, Kaka @ Kuldeep Singh, Manvir Singh, Amritpal Singh @ Gurpreet Singh, Harpreet Singh and Bharat Singh were challaned to face trial in this case.
4. Chargesheet was framed and the statement of Baldev Singh PW1 was recorded when prosecution filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of Mandeep Singh @ Mani, Gursewak Singh, Dashmesh Singh, Karamjit Singh, Soni Singh @ Amritpal Singh to face trial along with other accused.
5. After hearing arguments, application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed by passing impugned order dated 22.11.2021, and the aforesaid accused persons were ordered to be summoned to face trial as referred above. Feeling aggrieved of this order, present revision petition has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that impugned order dated 22.11.2021 is not in consonance with the statement recorded during investigation. They have been summoned merely on the statement of Baldev Singh recorded in examination-in-chief as PW1. No specific role is attributed to the present petitioners. After registration of FIR, matter was enquired by the police. Present petitioners were found to be innocent as per inquiry report (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled N. Manogar & Anr. Vs. The Inspector of Police & Ors. 2024 Crl. L.R. (SC) 268 where it was held that discretionary powers under Section 319 3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2024 20:13:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:088846 CRR-340-2022 (O&M) -4- Cr.P.C., 1973 ought to have been used sparingly where circumstances of the case so warrant. He has also referred to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 219 where again it was observed in para No.8 as under:-
"8. We say this for the following reason:
The test as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court for invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. inter alia includes the principle that only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. The power cannot be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. The test to be applied, as laid down by this Court, is one which is more than prima facie case which is applied at the time of framing of charges."
7. Thus, it is argued that for the purpose of summoning additional accused on application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. prosecution was required to establish their case more than prima-facie which the prosecution had failed. Statement of Baldev Singh PW1 is not sufficient to summon the present petitioners on application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Therefore, impugned order dated 22.11.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur may kindly be set aside by accepting the present revision.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the State filed status report confirming that FIR No.83 dated 19.05.2019 was registered at Police Station Sadar Sangrur for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 325 324, 323, 341, 506, 148 and 149 IPC. It was registered on the statement of Baldev Singh Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ealwal against 12 accused persons by name. It is matter of record that during investigation challan 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2024 20:13:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:088846 CRR-340-2022 (O&M) -5- was presented against Kulwinder Singh and others whereas present revisionist were found to be innocent. Complainant along with prosecution filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Present revisionist were specifically named by the complainant in his statement recorded as PW1 and thereafter considering the facts of the case accused Mandeep Singh @ Mani, Gursewak Singh, Dashmesh Singh, Karamjit Singh, Soni Singh @ Amritpal Singh were rightly summoned to face trial along with other co- accused. It is submitted that revision preferred by revisionist is without merits.
9. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. As per the facts of the case, occurrence took place on 19.05.2019 at about 10.30 am and the FIR was lodged on the same day without delay. FIR was recorded on the statement of Baldev Singh, Sarpanch of village Gram Panchayat Ealwal. He has narrated the manner in which the occurrence took place as referred above. In the said statement present revisionists namely Karamjit Singh, Mandeep Singh @ Manni, Gursewak Singh, Dashmesh Singh and Amritpal Singh were specifically named. However, during inquiry conducted by the police they were found to be innocent and were not challaned in this case. As a result, after the framing of chargesheet when statement of Baldev Singh was recorded as PW1 in examination-in-chief on 17.09.2021 he again reiterated the facts which he had narrated initially at the time of registration of FIR and named the present revisionists. The complainant along with prosecution had filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 24.09.2021 which is Annexure P-4 and the impugned order vide which the present revisionists were summoned is dated 22.11.2021.
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2024 20:13:48 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:088846
CRR-340-2022 (O&M) -6-
10. In the case in hand, present petitioners have been summoned on application under Section 319 Cr.P.C which runs as under:-
Section 319 - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence:-
1. Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
2. Where such person is not attending the Court he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
3. Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
4. Where the Court proceeds against any person under Sub-Section (1) then-
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced
11. Gainful reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others 2014 (3) SCC 92 decided along with other cases where in para Nos.98 and 99 observed as under:-
6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2024 20:13:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:088846 CRR-340-2022 (O&M) -7-
"98. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
99. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if `it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence' is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are not `for which such person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."
12. Keeping in my the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners as well as aforesaid judgment, I have considered the facts and circumstances of present case. Contents of FIR No.83 dated 19.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) as well as statement of Baldev Singh recorded as PW-1 (Annexure P-3) have been carefully considered. The version put forward by complainant has remained 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2024 20:13:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:088846 CRR-340-2022 (O&M) -8- consistent and at this stage there is no reason to disbelieve the same. I have also considered the inquiry report (Annexure P-2) conducted by the police on the basis of which the revisionists were found to be innocent and were not challaned. In the inquiry report there is vague reference that on the basis of inquiry conducted in the village present petitioners/co-accused were found to be innocent and did not prefer to challan them. Such like inquiry report cannot be a base to establish innocence of co-accused. Therefore, learned trial Court while disposing of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. rightly considered testimony of complainant Baldev Singh PW1 as well as first statement given by him to the police on the basis of which FIR was registered where present revisionists were specifically named.
13. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the learned trial Court by allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide which the present petitioners were ordered to be summoned to face trial along with other co-accused. Consequently, finding no merits in the revision, same is accordingly declined.
14. My observations are made for the disposal of present criminal revision and it will have no bearings on the merits of the case.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well.
12.07.2024 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
snd JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No.
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2024 20:13:48 :::