IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No. 469 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.2.2010 Krishan Kumar and others ......Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** ORDER The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.1.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (I) Bhiwani vide which the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant has been allowed and the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused. The facts of the case are that on 23.3.2009 a telephonic message was received from Police Post General Hospital, Bhiwani regarding admission of Ram Rati and Sharmila due to some poisonous substance being administered to them. The injured were referred to PGIMS, Rohtak and Ram Rati expired there. On the basis of statement made by Naresh Kumar, the son of the deceased, the FIR was registered. The matter was investigated. During investigation, accused Satinder was arrested by the police whereas the remaining accused, namely Sharmila, Bharat Singh and Krishan Kumar who were found innocent, were kept in column No.2 of the challan. Challan was presented against Satinder only and charge under Crl.Revision No. 469 of 2010 [2] Section 302 IPC was framed. The prosecution examined Dr.Pawan Singh SMO as PW-1, Dr.Manish Kumar as PW-2, Naresh Kumar complainant as PW-3 and Dilbagh Singh as PW-4. After recording statement of the aforesaid witnesses, the complainant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the trial Court and said accused persons namely Sharmila, Krishan Kumar and Bharat Singh were ordered to be summoned as additional accused to face trial along with the main accused for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The present revision petition has been filed against the summoning order dated 19.1.2010 passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners -accused contends that it is a case of version and cross-version and the first version was from the petitioners' side and FIR No.166 dated 24.3.2009 under Sections 307/498- A/406 IPC was registered against Naresh Kumar (husband), Giani Ram (father-in-law), Rati Ram (mother-in-law), Anil Kumar (brother-in-law), Mukesh (sister-in-law) on the basis of statement made by Sarmila Devi wife of Naresh Kumar. The challan was filed only against Naresh Kumar. Lateron, on the basis of statement made by Naresh Kumar, a cross-case i.e. FIR No. 166 dated 24.3.2009 under Sections 302/34 IPC was registered at Police Station, City Bhiwani against Satinder, Sharmila, Krishan Kumar and Bharat Singh. On investigation, police found that it was a case of suicide and not murder. Challan was filed only against Satinder under Section 306 IPC. The matter was further investigated by D.P.S. Headquarters, Bhiwani and also by D.S.P.Dadri who found that petitioners have not played any role in the alleged occurrence and Naresh Crl.Revision No. 469 of 2010 [3] Kumar named the petitioners just to put pressure upon them as he was already facing a criminal case and petitioner No.3 being complainant and others were as witnesses against him. The matter was investigated and the petitioners were not found involved in the alleged occurrence . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has summoned the present petitioners only on the basis of statement of complainant Naresh Kumar who was examined as PW-3 and was declared hostile. Police did not rely on his statement and the petitioners were found innocent during investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the complainant is also facing trial under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to petitioner No.3 and Satinder is co-accused in the cross- version case under Section 306 IPC. The trial Court framed the charge against him under Section 302 IPC for commission of murder of mother of Naresh Kumar and both being witnesses against each other, settled the matter out of the Court and denied their statements given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Mr.Beniwal, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that names of the petitioners are mentioned in the statement of the complainant and that version has been investigated and it was found that complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners just to put pressure upon them as petitioner No.3 is complainant and other petitioners are witnesses against them and there is motive for the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioners. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and also gone through the summoning order including the statements of the witnesses. Crl.Revision No. 469 of 2010 [4] Section 319 Cr.P.C. provides that during the course of any inquiry or trial of an offence, if 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 other accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. Now the matter requires for consideration is whether from the adduced evidence there appears that any person who has not been arrayed as accused has committed the offence or whether he could be summoned if from the evidence adduced it appears that he was involved in the offence? In the present case, complainant Naresh Kumar appeared as PW-3 and he corroborated the version of the FIR. He has specifically stated that he saw his brother-in-law Krishan, father-in-law Bharat Singh and wife Sharmila catching hold of his mother Ram Rati and Krishan was administering some poisonous substance to her. Dilbag Singh and his father also reached at the spot on hearing noise and the assailants attacked on them. The statement of Naresh Kumar is in corroboration with the contents of the FIR which has further been corroborated by the statement of Dilbag Singh PW-4, an eye-witness of the occurrence, who stated that Krishan was administering some poisonous substance to Ram Rati and when Naresh Kumar raised voice against them, then all of them attached Naresh Kumar and caused injuries to him. Since the names of all the accused have been found mentioned in the statements of the witnesses namely Dilbag Sngh and Naresh Kumar recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the trial Court while Crl.Revision No. 469 of 2010 [5] allowing the application of the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has specifically mentioned that there was sufficient evidence on the file regarding the role of these three petitioners-accused in the commission of the alleged offence. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the revision petition is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE February 17, 2010. raghav