Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shashi Mehta @ Raj Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another ... on 23 January, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CRR-1713 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRR-1713 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided on January 23,2012
Shashi Mehta @ Raj Kumar and others --Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another --Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.G.S.Sidhu,Advocate, for petitioner Nos.1,3 and 4 Mr.Ashwani Bhardwaj,Advocate, for petitioner No.2. Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana Mr.R.K.Bhatia,Advocate, for the complainant/respondent No.2.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J:
This revision is directed against the order dated 19.7.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Sirsa, by which application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short, 'CrPC') for summoning of additional accused/petitioners, has been allowed.
The FIR is registered by Mohinder Kumar son of Dharam Pal who has alleged that his father Dharam Pal and uncle (Mausera Tau) Lal Chand had purchased a plot No.202, situated at Landi Market, Circular Road, Sirsa, which was shown in the names of Kiran Bala and Shakuntla CRR-1713 of 2011 (O&M) 2 about which a case was pending in the Civil Court where his father had gone for pursuing his application for stay. On the date of occurrence, at about 11.a.m, he alongwith his uncle Om Parkash and brothers Ashok Kumar, Surender @ Sonu sons of Dharam Pal were returning to Sirsa after completing some private work at Bhambhur. When they reached at Landi Market at 11.15. a.m., they saw Shashi Mehta @ Raj Kumar, Naresh Mehta, Sunil Mehta, Mahesh Bansal and Sunil Kumar on their aforesaid plot where construction work was going on. Naresh and Shashi were armed with licensed guns whereas Sunil Mehta, Mahesh Bansal and Sunil Kumar were armed with batton of spade (kassi wala danda). When they enquired about their presence and the construction on their plot, Shashi Mehta, Sunil Mehta and Mahesh Bansal told Naresh Mehta to finish daily dispute which prompted Naresh to fire a shot from his gun but he narrowly escaped. All the three again exhorted Naresh who fired from his gun which hit left arm of his brother Ashok Kumar and the bullet pierced through the other side and entered left side of his chest. The other accused Sunil Kumar and Mahesh Bansal also caught hold of him and gave slap and danda blows. As per medicolegal report, Ashok Kumar had suffered three injuries, two on the left arm and one on the chest which coincides with the story of the prosecution that the bullet fired by Naresh entered the left arm of Ashok from one side and came out from the other side and then entered left side of his chest. He also produced his MLR in which there are abrasions and complaint of pain as he had alleged that he was given beatings with slap, fists and also with danda.
Challan was presented only against Naresh but after the statement of Ashok Kumar (PW-1), the prosecution had filed an CRR-1713 of 2011 (O&M) 3 application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C on which Shashi Mehta alias Raj Kumar, Mahesh Bansal, Sunil Mehta and Sunil Kumar have been summoned as additional accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that order passed by the Court below is totally sketchy as he did not opine that the evidence on record is sufficient for conviction of the additional accused. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh and Anr Vs. State of Jharkhand,2009 (1) R.C.R.(Criminal ) 504.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the State has argued that the FIR was registered by Mohinder Kumar who had specifically named the present petitioners who were present there at the time of alleged occurrence and were armed with battons of spade and had also participated in giving beatings. Similar statement has been suffered by injured Ashok Kumar who has appeared as PW-1 that the present petitioners had exhorted Naresh to raise arm who had fired the shot which seriously wounded him. It is submitted that the Court below has recorded a categoric finding that Ashok Kumar, an injured eye witness, had corroborated the version of the complainant. Moreovere, it is submitted that the Court below has made obserevation that "it appears that sufficient material is available on the file to proceed further against the persons sought to be summoned through his application"
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.
In this case, it has been categorically mentioned by the complainant in the FIR about the role of the petitioners which has been CRR-1713 of 2011 (O&M) 4 corroborated by the statement of PW-1 Ashok Kumar. Moreover, the Court has given a categoric finding that the material on record is sufficient to proceed further against the petitioners for the purpose of summoning them to face trial. The petitioners were present on the scene of occurrence. Medical history of Ashok Kumar and Mohinder clearly shows the role played by them inasmuch as Ashok Kumar had suffered fire arm injury, Mohinder had suffered various abrasions and has complained of pain in his body because of beating given by the present petitioners with danda, fist and slap In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
January 23,2012 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge