CRR-335-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-335-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:16.11.2011 Rajbala @ Saroj Bala and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat by which the application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short “Cr.P.C.”] for summoning Rajbala @ Saroj Bala wife of Satish and Sandeep son of Randhir Singh as additional accused on the basis of the statement of Devender (PW1/complainant), has been allowed. Devender son of Kaptan Singh, complainant/PW1, registered a case vide FIR No.331 dated 14.08.2009, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 506, 302, 307, 325 of IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonepat. In the said incident, Parminder died at the spot due the injuries received, whereas Surat son of Harnarayan died lateron and Mohinder Singh, Bhupinder and Vijay suffered injuries. According to the complainant, Rajbala was armed with iron rod and Sandeep was armed with Jailly. While presenting the CRR-335-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] :::::::: challan, the petitioners were kept in column no.2 but when PW1 Devender/complainant was examined, he had categorically named both the petitioners to be present at the time of occurrence alongwith their respective weapons and were allegedly part of the unlawful assembly. The said witness has been thoroughly cross-examined and thereafter application for summoning of the present petition was moved. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is an error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Trial Court in summoning the present petitioners as no offence is alleged to have been committed by them and the only allegation against them is that they were armed with the alleged weapons. He further submitted that PW1 has stated that when the injuries were allegedly being caused to Bhupinder and Rani inside the house of Bhupinder, the complainant (Devender Rana) was outside the house and was present in the house of Mohinder Singh and is not in a position to tell as to who had caused the injuries in the house of Bhupinder. He has also submitted that even the learned Trial Court, while allowing the application for summoning, has not come to a definite conclusion about the distinct overt act causing particular injury to an individual person. He has rather submitted that petitioner no.2 was not present in the village and petitioner No.1 even does not reside in the said village. On the contrary, learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that PW1 Devender has categorically mentioned about the presence of the petitioners with their respective weapons at the time and place of occurrence and has submitted that the assault has been made by the assailants while chasing the injured at four places resulting into death of 2 persons and injuries to 3 other persons. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of Rajendra Shantaram Todankar v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1110 to contend that the petitioners are liable under Section 149 IPC read with Section 302 IPC and as such they have been rightly summoned by the learned Trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record from which I have found that there are specific allegations against the petitioners that they were present at the time and place of the occurrence with their respective weapons alongwith the other assailants and even if no distinct overt act causing particular injury is CRR-335-2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] :::::::: attributed to them, they could be held liable for the offence under Section 149 IPC being members of the unlawful assembly who had committed offence with a common object. The decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Shantaram Todankar's case (supra) is fully applicable in this case in which 5 out of 8 accused were armed with deadly weapons who had chased and assaulted the deceased leading to his death. It was held that the inference could be drawn that the accused persons were members of unlawful assembly formed with common object of fatally injuring deceased so as to cause his death and can be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the definite and specific finding as to which particular accused caused fatal injury need not to be recorded. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error in the order of the learned Trial Court while allowing the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and as such, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. November 16, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE