CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1503 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 16, 2008 Rajinder Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. A. K. Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) This is a second attempt by the petitioner to seek interference in the order declining the summoning of the respondents to face prosecution for an offence under Section 304B IPC. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of Criminal Revision No.270 of 2008, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.3.2008 with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1503 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: after cross-examination of complainant, Rajinder Singh. It is in this background that now the present revision petition has been filed to impugn the order whereby prayer of the petitioner for summoning three of the respondents as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been declined. The complainant in this case is Rajinder Singh, who has been examined as a prosecution witness. He is brother of Hardip Kaur, who has allegedly died on account of ill-treatment due to demand of dowry by her husband and the present respondents. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Rajinder Singh. The incident took place on 1.8.2007. The FIR was lodged on 3.8.2007. In the FIR, the allegations are only against Surinder Singh, who is alleged to have played an active role in death of Hardip Kaur. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that in the FIR, it is disclosed that the entire family was responsible for causing harassment, which has resulted in death of the deceased sister of the petitioner. After investigation, the respondents herein, were found innocent by the police and were accordingly not challaned. The challan was presented only against Surinder Singh, who is husband of the deceased. During the trial, statement of Rajinder Singh, complainant, is recorded and on the basis thereof, an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution for summoning the respondents as additional accused. This prayer has been declined, which is now impugned by the petitioner by way of present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1503 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: that whatever has been stated by complainant, Rajinder Singh, is what he had learnt from his late sister before she died. Accordingly, he has now given a detailed version, explaining the role of each and every individual, including that of the respondents in causing death of late Hardip Kaur. On this basis, the prayer is made for summoning the respondents herein. The Trial Court has considered the evidence of the complainant and has concluded that the complainant, Rajinder Singh, has made improvement in his evidence given before the Court from his earlier version given in the FIR and as such, his evidence would not be enough to summon the respondents as additional accused. It is conceded that in the FIR, the nature of allegation as now made before the Court were not mentioned. Subsequently, however, in a supplementary statement recorded on 7.8.2008, the role of each individual was disclosed by complainant, Rajinder Singh. Learned counsel for the respondents would join serious issue in this regard and would say that this evidence is an after thought on the part of the complainant, Rajinder Singh and this improved version came on record only when they had engaged a counsel. This aspect, according to the counsel, has come on record during the cross-examination of complainant, Rajinder Singh. Be that as it may, what is required to be seen is whether sufficient material is placed on record to summon the respondents as an additional accused as laid down in Michael Machado & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2000(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 75. As held in this case, the Court has a discretionary power to summon a CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1503 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: person as an additional accused to stand trial, but it is not to be exercised on the ground that the court entertained some doubt about his involvement in the offence. To summon a person to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard observed as under:- “The basic requirements for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well as tried along with the already arraigned accused.” In Michael Machado (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that unless the court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospects of the case as against newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned, the court should refrain from adopting such a course of action. In the present case, it is required to be seen if the evidence led before the Court is of such CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1503 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: a nature that it would raise a reasonable prospect of conviction of these persons, who are sought to be added as additional accused. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made before me. Basically, the evidence of Rajinder Singh is on the basis of whatever has been told to him by his later sister. It would not be very appropriate for this Court to make any observation, lest it will prejudice the case of either side. However, prima-facie, it can be noticed that if it had been so, the complainant was not bound to miss it while recording the FIR. The question would also arise if this derivative knowledge, which is being used as a dying declaration, could be treated as such as would raise a hope about the prospect of conviction of the accused sought to be added as additional accused. No doubt, it would be an admissible evidence as an oral dying declaration made to the complainant. The value required to be attached to this piece of evidence would be assessed having regard to other attending circumstances. At this stage, it would not be possible to hold that this piece of evidence, which even if treated as an oral dying declaration, would raise a reasonable prospect of conviction of the accused sought to be added, especially when viewed in the background that such allegations have not been made in the FIR and came to be made only in the supplementary statement. Accordingly, I am of the view that the Court has rightly considered the entire aspect of the case and decided not to summon the respondents as additional accused. I do not find any infirmity or error in the view taken by the Court, which may call for any CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1503 OF 2008 :{ 6 }: interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Ofcourse, the petitioner would have liberty to move application on the basis of evidence, which is brought on record during the course of proceedings and if such evidence satisfies the test as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for summoning the respondents, the same would be open for consideration in accordance with law by the Trial Court. October 16,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE