IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1252 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18th May, 2009 Manjit Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed by Manjit Singh assailing order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, who had declined the application of the petitioner accused to summon Kulbir Singh, Surjit Singh, Bagga Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh, as co- accused. Case of the petitioner is that above mentioned persons, who were sought to be summoned as co-accused, were named in the FIR by complainant Mehal Singh. FIR has not been placed on record. However, photocopy of the vernacular FIR, during course of arguments, has been read by counsel for the petitioner. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. Complainant had found dead body of his son in the fields. He had expressed suspicion that due to litigation with persons, sought to be summoned, they may have committed murder of the son of petitioner. The matter was investigated. Incriminating evidence was found against the petitioner. Criminal Revision No. 1252 of 2009 (O&M) Grievance of the petitioner is that persons sought to be summoned were absolved from the alleged offence on the basis of Panchayatee compromise (Annexure P-1). Counsel for the petitioner has further drawn my attention to statement made by Mehal Singh PW-1, where in cross-examination, he admitted that he had appeared as defence witness against Kulbir Singh and others, and they were threatening him. He also admitted that they were nursing grudge against him. But suggestion given to Mehal Singh by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was arrested due to pressure of the Panchayat, was denied. Counsel has further drawn my attention to the cross-examination of Investigating Officer, Inspector Sarabjit Singh, wherein he admitted that on 12th February, 2009, at about 11.30 a.m., Mehal Singh got recorded his statement and in that statement, Mehal Singh complainant stated that his son was murdered by Kulbir Singh, Surjit Singh, Bagga Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Kuldip Singh. He further stated that he had not joined into the investigation Kulbir Singh, Surjit Singh, Bagga Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Kuldip Singh, even though, their names figure in the FIR lodged by the complainant. Having noticed this contention of counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that contention raised will be better appreciated by the trial Court at the time of arguments, when guilt of the petitioner is to be determined, but it in no way divulge any incriminating evidence against the persons sought to be summoned, even though, on the basis of suspicion, they were named by the author of the FIR. During investigation, nothing was found against them. The author of the FIR was not an eye witness. Until and unless some incriminating evidence is disclosed, the persons sought to be summoned cannot be put on trial, because the accused insist that one lead of investigation was not taken to logical conclusion. Petitioner 2 Criminal Revision No. 1252 of 2009 (O&M) may claim prejudice or benefit, if it is made out from appreciation of evidence, but it is no ground to summon anybody at the instance of the petitioner accused. Trial Court has rightly held as under: “There is absolutely nothing on record which may demand summoning of Kulbir Singh and others. Mehal Singh turned up in the witness box as PW1 and stated that whatsoever he has narrated to the police was narrated on suspicion. However, when the police reached at the place of occurrence respectable of the village, who had gathered there told him that this murder was done by only Manjit Singh. Furthermore, Kulhari, one double bed-sheet one pair of Chappal smeared with some blood were got recovered by him on his (Manjit Singh’s) disclosure statement. Moreover, supplementary statement of Mehal Singh was also recorded. Prosecution has already examined eight witnesses and none of them point out an accusing finger at Kulbir Singh and others.” On the sound principles, the trial Court has refused to summon the above named persons. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 18, 2009 rps 3