Crl.Revision No.985 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.985 of 2011 Date of decision: 2.5.2011 Jogender and another ... Petitioners versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioners. ... JORA SINGH, J. Jogender and Sikandar directed this revision against the order dated 16.3.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Hisar. By the said order, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 204 dated 17.6.2008 under Sections 302/304-B/148/149 IPC, PS Sadar, Hansi, to summon Jogender and Sikandar was accepted. Story, in brief, is that on 27.11.2006, Anita was married with Bijender. Few days after the marriage, in-laws of Anita started misbehaving and maltreating her by saying that she was not of their choice. Anita was given beatings on several times. On 17.6.2008, on receipt of telephonic message, when complainant was on duty, then his son Rahul had gone to the house of the accused at Village Hazampur. Rahul was in the house of the accused, then Jogender, Rajender, Sikandar and Roshni Devi had caught hold Anita, then Bijender gave injuries with broken bottle of glass. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that earlier, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved but the same was dismissed. Against the order dated 23.3.2009, revision was preferred and the same was accepted. Direction was given to the trial Court to decide application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh. Argued that Jogender and Crl.Revision No.985 of 2011 2 Sikandar were found innocent. They were not challaned. At the time of occurrence, they were on duty. They were residing separately from the deceased and her husband. Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be accepted when the Court finds that evidence on the file is sufficient leading to conviction of the persons sought to be summoned. Court should assign sufficient and cogent reasons to summon the accused. Jogender and Sikandar are the brothers of Bijender but they were on duty at the time of occurrence. Investigation was verified by the DSP. Argued that impugned order be set aside. After going through the file, I am of the opinion that submission of learned counsel for the petitioners seems to be not correct one. Annexure P-3 is the copy of FIR. According to FIR, occurrence was witnessed by Rahul. Jogender, Rajender, Sikandar and Roshni Devi had caught hold the deceased, whereas Bijender had given injuries with a broken bottle of glass but three persons, namely, Rajender, Bijender and Roshni Devi, were challaned. Rahul, brother of the deceased, appeared as PW10 and stated that on receipt of telephonic message on 17.6.2008 that in-laws of Anita were planning to eliminate her, then he had gone to the house of Anita. Then noticed the accused, who were challaned along with Jogender and Sikandar. According to eye witness, Jogender and Sikandar along with Rajender and Roshni Devi had caught hold the deceased, when Bijender had given injuries. Same role was attributed to Jogender, Sikandar, Rajender and Roshni Devi but out of aforesaid 4 persons, only 2, namely, Rajender and Roshni Devi, were challaned. Earlier application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved but Crl.Revision No.985 of 2011 3 the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.3.2009. Against the order dated 23.3.2009, revision preferred by the complainant party was accepted vide order dated 25.3.2010 (Annexure P-2), with direction to the trial Court to reconsider the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. According to the FIR and the statement of eye witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C., persons sought to be summoned are the co-accused, as they were named in the FIR. In Court also, eye witness stated that Jogender and Sikandar along with Rajender and Roshni Devi had caught hold the deceased when Bijender gave injuries with a broken bottle of glass. Unnatural death within 7 years from the date of marriage at the in-laws house. Allegation of the petitioners is that they were not present at the time of alleged occurrence. They were on duty. Deceased might have attacked by some thieves. No doubt, when there is an application to summon a person as an additional accused, then person is to be summoned when evidence on the file is sufficient for conviction of the person sought to be summoned. As discussed earlier, same allegation against 4 persons that they had caught hold the deceased when Bijender had given injuries but out of 4 persons, who had caught hold the deceased, only 2 were challaned. Occurrence was in the house of in-laws. Unnatural death. But nothing on the file that at the time of occurrence, persons sought to be summoned as additional accused were on duty and were residing separately from the deceased and her husband. In 2009(2) RCR (Crl.) 289, Mann Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, Court observed that when number of persons named in the FIR and police found some of them to be innocent and not filing charge Crl.Revision No.985 of 2011 4 sheet against them, then Court can summon those persons as accused on the basis of same evidence, if it appears to the Court that accused committed an offence. Similar view was taken in 2009(2), RCR (Crl.) 131, Ram Pal Singh versus State of UP and others. In the present case also, Jogender and Sikandar were named in the FIR. They are the brothers-in-law of the deceased. Regarding separate residence, nothing on the file. Simple allegation of the petitioners is that Jogender, petitioner No.1, was on exam. duty at Government College, Hisar, and Sikandar, petitioner No.2, was attending his classes as B.Ed. Student at Chhotu Ram College of Education, Rohtak. Annexurer P-10 is the certificate issued by Centre Superintendent, Government College, Hisar, and as per certificate, Jogender was on duty from 16.5.2008 to 17.6.2008 but the certificate is silent when duty of Jogender had started on 17.6.2008, i.e., whether duty had started at 8.00 AM or 10.00 AM or 11.00 AM. Jogender is the resident of Village Hajampur, District Hisar, and as per certificate (Annexure P-10), he was on duty in Government College, Hisar. Occurrence was at about 8.00 AM on 17.6.2008. After occurrence at about 8.00 AM, very easy to attend college at Hisar. After evidence in the presence of Jogender, Court is to see whether at the time of occurrence, he was on duty in the College or after occurrence at about 8.00 AM, he had gone to the college at 9.00 AM or 10.00 AM. What is the distance of place of occurrence from the college. Sikandar, petitioner No.2, was a student of B.Ed. Annexure P- 11 is the certificate issued by the Incharge. According to certificate, Sikandar was directed to report to local Co-Ordinator on 1.6.2008 at 11.00 AM, i.e., C.R. College of Education, Rohtak. According to the attendance Crl.Revision No.985 of 2011 5 chart, Sikandar was present in the College, but he was to attend the college at 11.00 AM, whereas occurrence was at about 8.00 AM. After committing the crime, very easy to attend the college at 11.00 AM. Secondly, dispute is whether Sikandar was in the college or on his behalf, some other student had marked his presence. Attendance register was not signed by the students. So, at this stage, in view of certificates (Annexures P-10 and P-11), not safe to opine that they were not present at the time of occurrence, particularly when eye witness stated that they were very much present at the time of occurrence. In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that no illegality to summon Jogender and Sikandar under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to face trial along with co-accused. For the reasons recorded above, revision without merit is dismissed. 2.5.2011 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE