Crl. Rev. No. 1884 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: December 1, 2010 1. Crl. Rev. No. 1884 of 2010 Gurcharan Singh and others …..Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent 2. Crl. Rev. No. 2047 of 2010 Gurdev Singh and others …..Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent 3. Crl. Rev. No. 2575 of 2010 Rajinder Pal Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Crl. Rev. No. 1884 of 2010 [2] State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl. Rev. Nos. 1884 and 2047 of 2010. Mr.N.K. Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Rev. No. 2575 of 2010. Mr.Abhishekh Chautala, AAG, Punjab. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. This order will dispose of three revision petitions bearing CRR Nos. 1884, 2047 and 2575 of 2010, questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated May 17, 2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning petitioners Gurcharan Singh and others in Crl. Rev. No. 1884 of 2010 and Gurdev Singh and others in CRR No. 2047 of 2010. The third revision petition has been filed by Rajinder Pal Singh, complainant impugning the same order by virtue of which Kartar Singh has been left to be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court has observed hat since the solitary statement of witness can be made basis for conviction, as such there are reasonable grounds to summon the petitioners to face trial alongwith other accused. Crl. Rev. No. 1884 of 2010 [3] Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as per the statement to Rajinder Pal Singh is to the effect that his father is having a dispute of land measuring 84 kanals 10 marlas with his brother Amar Singh, Prithi Singh and nephew Gulzar Singh, Rishala Singh sons of Kartar Singh and that they are in possession of the said land and the High Court has stayed the alienation of the said land. Uncle of complainant- Amar Singh has executed sale deed of land measuring 20 kanals 12 marlas in favour of Joginder Singh from the said land and the complainant had filed an application for stopping the entry of mutation. His uncle Amar Singh and Prithi Singh and his cousin brothers Gulzar Singh, Rasal Singh, sons of Kartar Singh are adamant to hand over the possession of the land to Joginder Singh. On the day of occurrence, the complainant saw from the roof that Karaj Singh on Mohindra Tractor, Chanan Singh on Swaraj Tractor, were cultivating their land. Harpreet Singh and Rajwant Singh were spreading some seeds in the land. Near the tractors, Gurdev Singh son of Kartar Singh, armed with 12 bore gun, resident of Bagge Ke Khurd, Sukhdev Singh armed with 12 bore gun, Gurdev Singh armed with a dang, Raju son of Amar Singh armed with sword, Rasal Singh armed with 12 bore gun, Gulzar Singh armed with a Sela were standing there. On the patri, Grey Indica Car, Blue Zen Car, White Zen Car and other motorcycles were parked there. 15-20 more unknown persons who were armed with dangs and sotas were standing there. When the complainant came down from the roof and disclosed about this to his father-Malkiat Singh and mother Tejinder Kaur, his parents went out toward the fields despite the complainant stopping them. The case of Crl. Rev. No. 1884 of 2010 [4] the complainant is that Balwinder Kaur armed with 12 bore gun, Joginder Singh armed with 12 bore gun Sukhwinder Singh, Ex-Sarpanch armed with 315 bore rifle, Amar Singh armed with 12 bore gun, Gurcharan Singh, Ex- Sarpanch armed with sword came out. Gurcharan Singh raised a lalkara saying that Malkiat Singh and others be taught a lesson for not handing over the possession f the land. Then the complainant raised alarm and asked his parents to go back. In the meantime, Balwinder Singh and Joginder Singh fired shots with their guns at the father of the complainant with an intention to kill Malkiat Singh., Sukhwinder Singh fired a shot with his 315 bore rifle at the father of the complainant which hit his father on his back. His father Malkiat Singh fell down and subsequently Amar Singh fired a shot with his gun at his mother which hit on her right ear. She also fell down due to fire arm injury. Then the complainant came forward to lift his parents. Then, in the meantime, Gurdev Singh and Sukhdev Singh came towards him with their guns from the side of tractors. Gurdev Singh fired a shot with his gun with an intention to murder the complainant. The same hit his bicep. The complainant ran away in order to save his life. Then Sukhdev Singh fired a shot with his gun hitting the complainant on the calf of his leg. He and his mother raised alarm. Then other family members came out and also raised alarm. All the accused thereafter escaped from the spot on their tractors and vehicles towards Village Bagge Ke Khurd. When the abovesaid accused had left, the complainant and his wife Daljit Kaur found that his father was dead. He took his mother Tejinder Kaur to the house in injured condition. Mother was sent to Ferozepur for treatment. Thereafter he called Crl. Rev. No. 1884 of 2010 [5] Sukhwinder Singh and left his family members near the dead body and reported the matter to the police. The complainant claimed that Amar Singh had sold the land to Joginder Singh which was in possession of the complainant. All the accused had gathered to forcibly take possession of the land. Everything was done in conspiracy with Kartar Singh, Ex- Sarpanch of Village Bagge Ke Khurd. After recording the statement of complainant PW1 Rajinder Pal Singh on oath, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed which was allowed on September 22, 2008, as such 14 persons were arraigned as additional accused. All the 14 persons were summoned vide order dated September 22, 2008. The said order was set aside by Ranjit Singh, J., on November 3, 2008, observing that the Court must reflect application of mind to the relevant evidence and the law before deciding to summon the petitioners as additional accused in the light of the judgment of Micheal Machedo Vs. CBI and another, 2000 (2) RCR (Crl.) 75. Vide order annexure P-4, the trial Judge, on the basis of statement of complainant PW1 again summoned 14 accused who had been kept in column No.2 to face trial in view of the specific attribution against the said accused. Revision petition was again filed before this Court. The trial Judge was directed vide order dated January 20, 2010 to re-appreciate the matter and evidence and pass a speaking order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, observing that conviction can be based on the basis of the solitary witness and found that there were reasonable grounds to summon all the additional accused to face trial alongwith other accused except Kartar Singh. Allegation against Crl. Rev. No. 1884 of 2010 [6] Kartar Singh was that accused had committed the offence at the instance of Kartar Singh. The attribution considered not sufficient enough to implead accused Kartar Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioners in CRR No. 1884 of 2010- Gurcharan Singh and others and CRR No. 2047 of 2010-Gurdev Singh and others have contended that the trial Court without carefully appreciating the specific part attributed to each of the individual petitioner and without appreciating whether the circumstances prima facie warranted conviction summoned 13 petitioners as additional accused. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and gone through the allegations and statements of the complainant. It is a settled principle of law that the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised judiciously and consciously. Casual approach is not required to be adopted in summoning the petitioners as additional accused to face trial. Prima facie chances of conviction can be determined on the basis of the statement made by the witness/ witnesses. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be a bonafide act of trying all the persons who are likely to have committed the crime alleged. The individual part attributed to Gurdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Amar Singh is that they have been attributed gun shot injuries. Gurdev Singh had fired a shot with his gun injuring complainant Rajinder Pal Singh hitting on his bicep. Sukhdev Singh fired a shot hitting the complainant on the calf of the leg and Amar Singh fired a shot which hit the mother of the complainant on her right ear. Crl. Rev. No. 1884 of 2010 [7] Counsel for the petitioners submitted that MLR of Rajinder Pal Singh and his mother does not support the ocular version to a great extent. I have considered the contention of counsel for the petitioners. Total 17 persons were named and about 15 to 20 persons were not named in the FIR. A special team was constituted and detailed investigation was conducted. The petitioners were found innocent. The name of Gurdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Amar Singh are mentioned from the very beginning. In view of the part attributed to them, prima facie, there are chances of establishment of their complicity at final stage. But so far as 10 petitioners in CRR No. 1884 of 2010 are concerned, they have neither been attributed any specific injury nor any specific overt act. Gurcharan Singh- petitioner No.1 was allegedly armed with a lathi, petitioner No.2- Gurdev Singh was also armed with a dang, petitioners No.3 to 5- Karaj Singh, Jaswant Singh and Chanan Singh merely ploughed the fields, petitioner No.6-Harvinder Singh though armed with sword has not been attributed any injury. Similarly petitioner No.7-Gulzar Singh though armed with Sela but no specific overt act is attributed to him. Petitioner No.8- Rajwant Singh merely found spreading seed. Petitioner No.9 Rasal Singh was armed with 12 bore gun but neither the said gun was used nor anyone was injured. Petitioner No.10- Harpreet Singh was allegedly found spreading seeds. Since no injury is attributed to petitioners No.1 to 10 and the complainant is over-zealous to implicate all the family members, carefully appreciating the part attributed to Gurcharan Singh and others, the revision petition bearing CRR No. 1884 of 2010 deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The Crl. Rev. No. 1884 of 2010 [8] summoning order dated May 17, 2010 is hereby set aside the petitioners in CRR No.1884 of 2010. So far as petition filed by complainant challenging the non- summoning of Kartar Singh is concerned, there are vague allegations against Kartar Singh. The trial Court has rightly not summoned Kartar Singh. Crl. Rev. No. 2575 of 2010 is dismissed and the order of not summoning Kartar Singh is upheld. In view of the specific role attributed to the petitioners Gurdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Amar Singh, the CRR No. 2047 is dismissed. The summoning order qua the petitioners is upheld. The said accused will face trial as additional accused with other accused. Prima facie there being sufficient evidence against them. Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the rights of the parties at the final stage of adjudication. December 1, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE