Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hariom Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 July, 2012
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Criminal Revision No.1431 of 2011 (O&M) 1
....
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.1431 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.07.2012.
Hariom Sharma ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Nipun Vashisth, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anupam Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana,
for respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Hitesh Sood, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. D.B. Singh, Advocate,
for respondents No.3 and 4.
Daya Chaudhary, J.
The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.04.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide which application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the prosecution was dismissed.
Briefly the facts of the case as mentioned in the revision petition are that FIR No.17 dated 22.01.2010 was registered under Sections 307, 325, 320 and 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Model Town, Rewari as one Rattan Lal was murdered and Ashok Kumar was critically injured. In the FIR, the Criminal Revision No.1431 of 2011 (O&M) 2 ....
names of accused persons were Sanjay, Shyam Singh and Sonu @ Sunil, who were charge sheeted under Sections 147, 149, 307 and 120-B IPC vide order dated 19.10.2010. During investigation, no evidence was found against Kapil Soni, Narsi Chauhan and Pavitra and they were kept in column No.2 of the challan.
Thereafter prosecution examined PW1-Dr. Deepak Verma, PW2-Dr. J.K. Saini, PW3-Hari Om Sharma and PW4-Ashok Kumar. After recording statements of said PWs, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution for summoning of additional persons on the grounds that it came in the evidence of Hari Om and eye-witness Ashok Kumar-injured that the accused persons namely, Kapil Soni, Narsi Chauhan and Pavitra were found to have taken active participation in the occurrence with common object and formed unlawful assembly with other accused. The said application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2011 on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to summon these persons as an additional accused as no fresh evidence was there and the case was already investigated by the Investigating Agency.
The impugned order dated 20.04.2011 dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is subject matter of the challenge in the present revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the FIR was registered without any delay and names of the alleged accused persons were Criminal Revision No.1431 of 2011 (O&M) 3 ....
specifically mentioned with specific roles. The investigation conducted by the Police was unfair and the petitioners were wrongly declared innocent. Even there was sufficient incriminating evidence with the Investigating Officer but still they were kept in column No.2 of the challan. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the complaint, the name of Kapil Soni was specifically mentioned whereas Narsi Chauhan was described as brother of Gagan Chauhan by specifying his height 5'7/8", wheatish complexion well built which was further corroborated with the statements of PW3-Hari Om Sharma and PW4-Ashok Kumar. The statement of PW3-Hari Om Sharma has been disbelieved only on the ground that he had neither attended the injured nor took the injured to the hospital nor information was given to the Police. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that name of Pavitra came in the disclosure statement of accused Shyam Singh wherein specific role was assigned to her. The motive was also there as father of Ashok Kumar was murdered by accused Shyam Singh, Kapil Soni, Gagan Chauhan, Pardeep Soni and Suresh Kumar and they were facing trial in case bearing FIR No.381 dated 21.11.2008. They were tried and convicted vide judgment dated 07.05.2011. The incident in the present case had occurred one day prior to the occurrence as mentioned in the present FIR.
Learned State counsel as well as counsel for private respondents oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that a very detailed order had been passed Criminal Revision No.1431 of 2011 (O&M) 4 ....
with specific finding and no sufficient material was found to exercise the extraordinary powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was rightly dismissed.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents available on the file.
Admittedly, FIR No.17 dated 22.01.2010 was registered under Sections 307, 325, 302, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Model Town, Rewari on the basis of complaint made by Hari Om Sharma. Challan was presented against Sanjay, Shyam Singh and Sonu @ Sunil and Kapil Soni, Narsi Chauhan and Pavitra were found innocent and they were kept in column No.2 of the challan. After recording of statements of PW1-Dr. Deepak Verma, PW2-Dr. J.K. Saini, PW3-Hari Om Sharma and PW4-Ashok Kumar, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning of additional persons which was dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2011 which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the investigation conducted by the Police was not fair and inspite of specific role of each person, they were not summoned. There was sufficient material/evidence before the Summoning Court still application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
On perusal of the entire record of the case, it appears that the investigation was conducted at different stages. Initially, SI Sube Singh conducted investigation and then SI Bharat Singh and Criminal Revision No.1431 of 2011 (O&M) 5 ....
thereafter Puran Chand Pawar Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter) investigated and verified the facts and circumstances of the case and all of them found Narsi Chauhan, Kapil Soni and Pavitra innocent. Even learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari ordered further investigation at the instance of the complainant party and again investigation was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, Rewari and these persons were found innocent. The allegation of the complainant were found to be false and proceedings under Sections 182, 195, 177, 193, 203 and 211 IPC were initiated against the complainant-Hari Om Sharma. As per version of the complainant-Hari Om Sharma and injured-Ashok Kumar, Scorpio bearing registration No.HR-36K-7900 of white colour was involved in the case whereas in the investigation, the colour of Scorpio was found to be cherry colour and having registration number HR-66-2988. After receiving FSL, statements of complainant and injured were found to be doubtful. In the disclosure statements of accused, Narsi Chauhan, Kapil Soni and Pavitra were not found to be involved in the occurrence. From the investigation and even resolution of Bar Association Rewari, a clean chit was given to Narsi Chauhan. On reinvestigation, both Kapil Soni and Narsi Chauhan were found innocent. As per description given in the complaint and connecting description as mentioned in the statements was found to be correct with regard to the involvement of Narsi Chauhan, Kapil Soni and Pavitra. Even in the cross-examination of PW3, neither the injured was attended by him nor was taken to the hospital by him. As Criminal Revision No.1431 of 2011 (O&M) 6 ....
per statement of Ashok Kumar-injured, he has stated that he has not seen Hari Om Sharma prior or after the occurrence. It has also come in the statement that injured-Ashok Kumar knew the names of accused Sunil and Sanjay but still they were not named in the FIR. Name of Pavitra was not mentioned in the FIR and no connecting evidence was found against her during the investigation.
Admittedly, power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power to be exercised very sparingly and only if compelling circumstances and reasons are there for taking cognizance against other persons who are sought to be summoned. The said power is to be exercised judiciously, only in case some fresh evidence is there which come during the course of inquiry or trial of the offence and the Court is satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with the other accused.
On the basis of entire evidence on record and the cross- examination of witnesses PW3-Hari Om Sharma and PW4-Ashok Kumar, no sufficient evidence is there to summon the additional accused.
In Michael Macahdo and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 75, the Apex Court has observed that the Court is to satisfy from the evidence that the person seeks to be summoned has committed an offence. The relevant observation reads as under: -
"11. The basic requirements for invoking the above Criminal Revision No.1431 of 2011 (O&M) 7 ....
section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused."
In view of the facts as mentioned above, the impugned order does not require any interference keeping in view the finding recorded therein and there is no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the same being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
23.07.2012 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE