Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurtej Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 October, 2013
Author: K. C. Puri
Bench: K. C. Puri
CRR NO. 3301 OF 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR NO. 3301 OF 2013 (O&M)
DECIDED ON : 24.10.2013
Gurtej Singh
...Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
Present : Mr. P. S. Khurana, Advocate.
K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 13.06.2013 passed by Shri Sundeep Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which the present petitioner along with other accused has been summoned to face trial in respect of offence punishable under Sections 323/324/326/307/341/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the IPC") bearing FIR No. 80 of 13.06.2010 registered at Police Station Baragudha.
Briefly stated, above said FIR was registered with the allegations that Kuldeep Singh who was living with his aunty (father's sister) for the last one year and three months. On 12.06.2010, he along with Kamaljeet Singh and Gurender Singh sons of Mukhtiar Singh came from the field to village Raghuana on tractor. Darshan Singh son of Balkaran Singh was also with them. When they reached near the bridge of canal falls on Bhatia Shalini 2013.11.22 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR NO. 3301 OF 2013 (O&M) -2- Panniwala road, Gurtej Singh r/o Raghuana had blocked the road to stop his tractor with trolley on the road. Complaiannt stopped his tractor and in the light of tractor, he saw that Harnek Singh s/o Harchand was armed with Sotti. Gurinder Singh and Harender Singh sons of Harnek Singh were also with him. Gurinder Singh was armed with Lathi and Harender Singh was armed with Gandasa. Bhura Singh s/o Gobind Singh was armed with Gandasa. Gurdeep Singh @ Chidiya was armed with Gandasa. Avtar Singh @ Jaggi s/o Gurdev Singh was armed with Lathi. Gurjant Singh s/o Bagga Singh was armed with Gandasa. All the above mentioned persons surrounded his tractor. Harnek Singh raised lalkara that he be taught a lesson for winning the election. Gurtej Singh gave Gandasa blow on the head of Darshan Singh due to which he fell down. Gurdeep Singh @ Chidiya gave Gandasa blow on the right eye of Darshan Singh from sharp side. Harnek Singh gave lathi blow on the right eye of Darshan Singh and he gave another lathi blow on the right side of the face (cheek) of Darshan Singh. Harender Singh gave Gandasa blow on the head of Gurender Singh from the sharp side. Kamaljeet Singh came there and tried to save Darshan Singh, then Bhura Singh s/o Gobind Singh gave Gandasa blow on the left ear of Kamaljeet Singh due to which his ear was cut. Gurinder Singh gave two lathi blows on the right ear and forehead of Kamaljeet Singh. Avtar Singh @ Jaggi gave lathi blow on the right ear of Kamaljeet Singh. When the complainant tried to save Kamaljeet Bhatia Shalini 2013.11.22 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR NO. 3301 OF 2013 (O&M) -3- Singh, Gurjant Singh s/o Bagga Singh gave Gandasa blow on his head. He raised an alarm. On hearing alam, Balkaran Singh s/o Banta Singh came there. On seeing him, all the above mentioned persons ran away from the spot in their tractor-trolley along with their respective weapons and they also threatened to kill them whenever they will get an opportunity. All the accused persons hatched the conspiracy to kill them. In the meantime, Jagtar Singh s/o Gurnam Singh came at the spot in Scorpio. Jagtar Singh and Balkaran Singh took all the injured in the Scorpio and proceeded towards village. They saw in the light of Scorpio that Jagsir Singh and Ninder Singh were standing. Jagsir Singh was armed with pistol and Ninder Singh was armed with Gandasa. When they turned their Scorpio towards their house, Jagsir Singh fired a shot which hit on the backside of Scorpio. He fired second shot with an intention to kill them but they save their lives by driving the Scorpio fastly. All the accused persons, with an intention to kill them, attacked upon them due to enmity that Jagtar Singh won the election and Bhura Singh was defeated.
The prosecution moved an application for summoning seven persons as additional accused but the trial Court, vide order dated 06.01.2012, dismissed that application.
Feeling dissatisfied with the above said order dated 06.01.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sirsa, the complainant preferred CRR No. 332 of 2012. Bhatia Shalini 2013.11.22 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR NO. 3301 OF 2013 (O&M) -4-
Learned counsel for the parties stated at the bar that they have no objection in case the impugned order is set-aside and the trial Court is directed to decide the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C afresh, after carefully reading the evidence available on record. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, accepted the said application and summoned the petitioner along with other accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 13.06.2013.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that petitioner was on duty at the time of occurrence. The occurrence relates to 12.06.2010 and he was on duty from 05.06.2010 to 15.06.2010. So, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The Investigating Agency has rightly declared the petitioner as innocent. So, summoning of the petitioner as additional accused is unwarranted and uncalled for.
To support his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon following authorities :-
1. "Paramvir @ Happy v. State of Haryana"
2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 408;
2. "Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and another"
2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 762;
3. "Sarobjen Ashwinkumar Shah etc. v. State of Gujarat and others" 2011 (3) RCR (Criminal) 852;
Bhatia Shalini 2013.11.22 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR NO. 3301 OF 2013 (O&M) -5-
4. "Deepak Narain and other v. State of U.P and another" 2010 (6) All.LJ 632.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but do not find force in the same.
The occurrence has taken place at 9:00 PM. The normal duty hours are from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. So, it cannot be said that the accused could not be present at the time of occurrence. The injury attributed to the petitioner falls within the ambit of Section 326 IPC. Mere fact that he was a government teacher is not a ground to allow the present revision petition. The name of petitioner finds mentioned in the FIR. His active participation is there. He has been attributed grevious injury. So, in these circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
So far as authority Paramvir @ Happy's case (supra) is concerned, it is distinguishable from the facts of present case. It is held in the said authority that it is the duty of the police authorities to give complete detail or reason in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C as to why a particular person is not being challaned and on the basis of which evidence he has been declared innocent. Moreover, in that case, the accused was summoned before cross-examination of witnesses produced in Court.
So far as authority Mohd. Shafi's case (supra) is concerned, the ratio of said judgment is that without cross-
examination
Bhatia Shalini
2013.11.22 17:17
of witnesses, the evidence is not complete.
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
CRR NO. 3301 OF 2013 (O&M) -6-
However, that point has not been pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments. Otherwise also, latest law in this regard by the Hon'ble Apex Court in authority "Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab" reported in Manu SC 1326 held that accused can be summoned even without cross- examination of the witnesses if the evidence is sufficient to make out a case for summoning of additional accused. Mohd. Shafi's case (supra), has been discussed in that case.
So far as authority Sarobjen Ashwinkumar Shah etc's case (supra) is concerned, it is remotely connected to the facts of present case. That case relates to offence under Section 138 and 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in respect of dishonour of cheque. It was held in that authority that partner could be prosecuted only if there is evidence that he was incharge and was responsible to the firm for conducting the business of the firm. There is no such evidence in the present case.
In authority Deepak Narain and other's case (supra), it was held that without recording a specific finding that evidence on record if remained uncontroverted would be sufficient to record conviction, the accused cannot be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. However, in the present case, the trial Court after appraisal of the statements of witnesses and complainant, reached to the conclusion that summoning of present accused along with other accused is required. That Bhatia Shalini 2013.11.22 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR NO. 3301 OF 2013 (O&M) -7- finding is based upon the attribution to the petitioner.
So, in view of the above discussion, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed in limine.
OCTOBER 24, 2013 (K. C. PURI)
shalini JUDGE
Bhatia Shalini
2013.11.22 17:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh