Crl. Revn. No. 2504 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No. 2504 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 07, 2010 Urmila Devi ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Pawan Hooda, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J (Oral). The epitome of facts, which needs a necessary mention, for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that according to the prosecution, on 26.10.2009, Kuldeep son of complainant-Urmila Devi was murdered by the accused. The Panchayat was convened in the village wherein the accused admitted their guilt that they administered poisonous substance to the deceased and thrown his body in the water tank of the tube well (Chabacha). 2. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of the complaint of the petitioner-complainant Urmila Devi, the criminal case was registered against the private respondent-accused, vide FIR No. 499 dated 03.11.2009, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC by police of Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat. As respondents-accused Prem Chand and Chand Ram were stated to be juveniles, therefore, they were separately tried by the Juvenile Justice Board (Court). 3. The petitioner claimed that as the police was helping and siding with Crl. Revn. No. 2504 of 2010(O&M) -2- the accused, therefore, the prosecution did not examine the material witnesses and the Juvenile Justice Board, Panipat closed the evidence of the prosecution, vide impugned order dated 13.08.2010. 4. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and filed the instant petition in this Court, while the State of Haryana filed a separate revision petition bearing No. 62 of 2010, which was dismissed by the Revisional Court (Additional Sessions Judge), mainly on the ground that the impugned order is interlocutory and, as such, the revision against the interlocutory is not maintainable and also on the ground of pendency of the present petition in this Court, by virtue of order dated 29.09.2010. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the impugned order cannot legally be sustained. 6. As is evident from the record, that the direct and very serious allegations are assigned to the respondents-accused that they have committed the murder of the son of the petitioner and admitted their guilt before the Panchayat in this respect. 7. The petitioner is an unfortunate mother of the deceased and it was the duty of the State agency to produce the entire evidence in the court . The petitioner cannot possibly be blamed in this relevant connection. The evidence of the prosecution was closed, vide impugned order dated 13.08.2010. The main grounds, which appear to have been weighed with the trial Court in this respect were that (i) summons issued to PWs were received back unserved, (ii) the prosecution has availed ample opportunities to produce the evidence and (iii) as per the Juvenile Justice (Case and Protection of Children) Act, the enquiry has to be concluded within four months. Consequently, the evidence of the prosecution was closed. 8. Here to my mind, that the trial Court slipped into deep legal error in this relevant behalf. True, it is that prosecution appears to be somewhat negligent in producing the material witnesses in the Court, which corroborate the apprehension of the Crl. Revn. No. 2504 of 2010(O&M) -3- petitioner that police is helping the accused. Be that as it may, it was the duty of the trial Court to summon and examine the witnesses in such a heinous offence of murder. If the PWs were not served, then it was obligatory on the part of the trial Court, to take effective/coercive measures for service of the witnesses. The trial Court was not justified in straightway jumping to the conclusion, without assessing the gravity of heinous offence, that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the prosecution to conclude its evidence. Therefore, to my mind, the impugned order cannot legally be sustained in the eyes of law. Otherwise, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and the accused would go scott-free who have committed the heinous crime. 9. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 13.08.2010 is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide adequate opportunities to examine the material witnesses in the instant case. 10. Needless to state that the trial Court will take effective and coercive steps to serve and examine the prosecution witnesses. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Decemer 07, 2010 JUDGE G.Arora