IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2001 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: August 25, 2011 Satya Narain .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.N. Singal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against order dated 10.5.2010 vide which an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Balbir, Dharam Chand and Bimla as additional accused, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that allegation against Bimla (respondent No.4) is that she was standing nearby when occurrence is said to have taken place, revision petition qua Crl. Revision No.2001 of 2010 [2] her is not pressed. 3. Learned counsel however contends that there are specific allegations against Dharam Chand and Balbir, of having caught hold of Sudhir (deceased). Main injury was given by Rakesh, on the head of Sudhir (deceased). In such circumstances, the order passed by the Trial Court is rendered illegal. Dharam Chand and Balbir have taken active part in causing the death of Sudhir and the said two persons need to be summoned as additional accused. 4. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. 5. The sequence of events as is made out on perusal of the record, is that petitioner, Satya Narain, was informed by his wife Birmati in regard to the incident. Satya Narain gave his statement whereupon FIR was lodged. Relevant portion of the FIR reads as under:- “...... Yesterday i.e on 26.2.09, my wife Birmati and son Sudhir had gone to old house for cleaning the same. At about 9.30/10 A.M, I received a phone call in school that Dharam Chand s/o Lal Chand, Balbir s/o Daya Nand, resident of Jeet Pura, who is brother-in-law of Dharam Chand, caught hold of Sudhir and Ramesh @ Rinku s/o Dharam Chand Yadav gave an iron rod blow to Sudhir in his head. Bimla w/o Dharam Chand was also standing nearby. On receiving the injury, my son fell unconscious. Balbir and my wife took him to Malik Hospital, Hansi and lateron got him admitted in Metro Hospital, Hisar.....” 6. Balbir, Dharam Chand and Bimla were shown in Column No.2 of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Birmati, eye- witness was examined as PW-1 whereafter the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed that has been dismissed vide the impugned order. 7. Birmati who, allegedly, is the eye-witness, has given Crl. Revision No.2001 of 2010 [3] her statement on oath in Court in the following words:- “..... We then had moot out a proposal and wanted to let out that old house and in the context about seven months back I alongwith Sudhir had gone to that old house to clean it. It was around 9/9.15 a.m. that the accused Rakesh present in the Court was standing in that main door and by that time we has also entered inside the house and then the accused Rakesh present in the Court started hurling abuses and threatened that if you would give this house on rent then it would not be proper. In the meanwhile Dharam Chand, Balbir and Bimla came there. Dharam Chand and Balbir caught hold of the hands of my son and Rakesh inflicted an iron rod on the head of my son. Bimla was standing nearby.....” 8. Rakesh, main accused, happens to be the son of Dharam Chand. Balbir is the brother of Bimla wife of Dharam Chand. It is further the admitted case that only one blow was given that has been attributed to Rakesh, main accused. It is also the admitted case that Balbir (respondent No.2) took Sudhir to the hospital. 9. Photocopy of a document/ medico-legal report has been produced by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, according to which, respondent Balbir son of Daya Nand brought Sudhir (deceased) to the hospital. The photocopy of medico-legal report is taken on record. 10. The impugned order has been passed on the premise that case was investigated by Deputy Superintendent of Police. Detailed reference to the report has been made in Para 12 of the impugned order. It has been concluded by the investigating agency, who have employed their powers of investigation under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that no incriminating material could be found so as to say that Balbir, Dharam Chand and Bimla were involved in the offence. 11. Be that as it may, because suspicion had been shown Crl. Revision No.2001 of 2010 [4] by the complainant, Balbir, Dharam Chand and Bimla were asked to be subjected to polygraph test to which, it appears that they agreed. In the polygraph test report, which has been referred to in detail in the impugned order, the expert concluded that the three persons were truthful in giving responses. Thus, even the report of polygraph test does not indicate commission of offence by the respondents. 12. I further find that even as per the statement of PW-1, Birmati, she and Sudhir were taken to the hospital by respondent, Balbir. Ordinarily an accused would not take the injured to a hospital for treatment. It therefore, appears that the respondents have been implicated because of their inter-relationships, as noticed above. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in passing of the impugned order. Relevant factors have been taken into account, including exhaustive investigation conducted by the investigating agency, which includes employment of scientific means. The main accused (Rakesh) who allegedly caused the single injury is already facing trial. 13. In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out. 14. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) August 25, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?