Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ganga Bishan vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 29 October, 2022
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
CRR No.1491 of 2018 (O&M) 1 237-A IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1491 of 2018 (O&M) Reserved on : 14.09.2022 Date of decision : 29.10.2022 Ganga Bishan eae Petitioner versus StateofHaryana&ors, ae Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN RK Present :- Mr. J.P.Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Govind, Advocate for Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 8. RK PANKAJ JAIN, J.
Petitioner is complainant. He has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 14.02.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal whereby application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for summoning private respondents as additional accused (s) stands dismissed. FIR No.104 dated 07.06.2016 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323 & 506 IPC at Police Station Kalayat on the complaint made by petitioner-Ganga Bishan wherein it was alleged that :-
"Yesterday on 06.06.2016 at about 9:30 AM, my brother Sampuran Singh giving the water from the tubewell and I have come to the fields by taking his tea and meals. When my brother went to POOJA SHARMA 2022.11.01 15:14 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.1491 of 2018 (O&M) 2 change the water fram one Milla to another, in the meantime some persons were sitting hiding in Jawar. Ramesh (Respondent no.3), Naresh (respondent no.2) Suresh sans of Ramroop, Ram Roop, Sunder (respondent no.4}, Satpal (respondent no.5) sons of Chandan, Rambir (respondent no.8) son of Sunder, Manaj (respondent no.6) S/o Satpai and Mohan (respondent no.7) son of Chandan residents of Ramgarh have attacked on my brother Sampuran Singh with their respective weapons. This was done due to the enmity on account of electric pole of the tubewell on the common dole. Ramesh S/o Ramroop gave the lathi blow to the head of my brother, then Ramesh son of Ramroop gave the lathi hiow on the right side of the head of my brother. Thereafter Suresh son of Ram sarup gave a gandasi blaw on the head af my brother. Thereafter Manoj S/o Satpal gave the lathi blow on the right arm of my brother, Rambir S/o Sunder gave lathi blow on the shoulder and back of my bother. In the meantime I reached the spot after running to save my brother on this Mohan had given gandasi blow from the blunt side on my head. Then Satpal gave the lathi blow to left arm. Then Ramroop gave the lathi blow to my brother on the arm. Then Surender gave a lathi blow on right shoulder and Back."
Bare perusal of FIR would reveal that all private respondents namely Naresh, Ramesh, Sunder, Satpal, Manoj, Mohan and Rambir were named in the FIR. Admittedly while filing report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. they were not challaned.
During the course of trial complainant-Ganga Bishan appeared as PW-2 and injured-Sampuran appeared as PW-3. Both of them repeated the allegations as levelled in FIR. Consequently, present application was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of the private respondents as additional accused. The said application stands dismissed vide impugned order. As per the trial Court no new material has come on record which would warrant summoning of the private respondents as additional accused exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
POOJA SHARMA 2022.11.01 15:14 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document POOJA SHARMA 2022.11.01 15:14 CRR No.1491 of 2018 (O&M) 3 Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the allegations levelled against the private respondents stand fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Injured witness in his testimony has fully inculpated the private respondents and thus the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
Per contra, counsel for the respondents submits that the trial Court has fully appreciated the evidence on record and the case of the petitioner does not fall within the test as laid down in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & ors. 2014(3) SCC 92. He thus claims that the evidence being discrepant, no ground to interfere in the order passed by trial Court is made out.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
Ganga Bishan, complainant and Sampuran S/o Hardwari Lal are the injured persons in the present case. As per allegations levelled in the FIR Satpal gave a lathi blow on the left arm of complainant Ganga Bishan. As per medico-legal report of Ganga Bishan following injuries have been found on his person :-
Sr No. | Injuries Marked Injury Number 1 A lacerated wounds of 3.0x0.3cm size with Yes 1 irregular margins over Scalp. Adv: X-Ray Skull AP/Lat and surgeon opinion.
2 An Abradded area 2.5x2.0 cm size reddish with Yes 2 irregular margins over proximal left forearm.
Adv : X-ray left FA with elbow AP/Lat and ortho opinion.
3 A Pinkish contusion 2x1 cm size with irregular Yes 3 margins over middle of left forearm. Adv : X-Ray left FA with elbow with wrist AP/Lat and ortho opinion.
4 A Pinkish contusion 4x1:5 cm size with irregular Yes 4 margins over right arm. Adv : X-Ray right arm with shoulder with elbow AP/Lat and ortho opinion.
| attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.1491 of 2018 (O&M) 4 Sr No. | Injuries Marked Injury Number 5 Multiple pinkish contusions of various sizes and Yes 5 shapes with irregular margins over posterior aspect of trunk. Adv : CxR-PAL/Lat/obl. X-Ray LS Spine AP/Lat, USG- Thorax/Abdomen, Ortho opinion and surgeon opinion.
6 C/O Pain in dorsum of left hand. O/E No grossly Yes 6 external visible wound. Adv : X-Ray left hand AP/Obj and ortho opinion.
7 C/O Pain in Left ear. O/E No grossly external | Yes 7 visible wound. Adv : ENT opinion.
Thus injury No.2 stands attributed to accused Satpal which stands fully corroborated by the medical evidence on record. Apex Court in Hardeep Singh's case (supra) held that :-
"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."
Thus apart from Satpal and Mohan, there is no material on record against other private respondents to summon them as additional accused. Resultantly, present revision petition qua respondents No.2, 3, 4, 6 & 8 is ordered to be dismissed.
POOJA SHARMA 2022.11.01 15:14 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.1491 of 2018 (O&M) 5 Consequently, Satpal and Mohan are ordered to be summoned as additional accused. Similarly, with respect to Mohan, it is alleged in the FIR that he gave gandasi blow from the blunt side on head of Ganga Bishan. The allegation levelled against Mohan is also fully corroborated by injury No.1 found on the person of Ganga Bishan. Consequently, aforesaid 2 of the private respondents namely Satpal and Mohan are ordered to be summoned as additional accused. They are ordered to be summoned as additional accused to face trial in FIR No.104 dated 07.06.2016 registered for offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323 & 506 IPC at Police Station Kalayat, Kaithal.
(PANKAJ JAIN ) JUDGE 29.10.2022 Pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable : No POOJA SHARMA 2022.11.01 15:14 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document