CRR No.3284 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.3284 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.01.2011 Hardeep Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.2. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present revision is filed challenging the order dated 5.11.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Bathinda in Sessions case No.8 of 28.2.2009, thereby summoning the revisionist under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a co-accused. Brief facts of the case are that initially name of the revisionist was also figured in the FIR, however, after the investigation, police did not file any challan against the petitioner and had filed the challan against another co-accused i.e. Gurdeep Singh. Learned Trial Court after having examined the material available on the record as well as statement of Darshan Singh declined to summon the accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the request of the CRR No.3284 of 2009 (O&M) -2- prosecutor vide order dated 13.8.2009. Same order was challenged before this Court in CRR No.2259 of 2009, which was decided on 24.10.2009. This Court has observed in the order dated 24.10.2009 as under: - “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with a good deal of force that Hardeep Singh accused had exhorted his co-accused, who caused injuries to the deceased with Gandassa and when the deceased lay fallen on the ground, Gurdeep Singh gave thrust-wise Gandasa blows and Hardeep Singh gave kick blows to the deceased. He further puts that a careful reading of the statements Annexure P-1 of Darshan Singh PW1 and Annexure P-2 of Dr. HS Hayer PW2 would reveal that injury No.3 in fact is the result of the kick blows attributed to Hardeep Singh. Thus, the trial court was not justified in declining the prayer made for summoning of Hardeep Singh to face trial alongwith his co-accused. Learned State counsel could not controvert these contentions in a successful manner. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Has been declined on the sole ground that the role of Hardeep Singh is not substantiated by medical evidence. Darshan Singh PW1 in his statement (Annexure P-1) has testified that “Then I saw that Gurdeep Singh was hitting Gandasa thrust wise on the chest of Binder Singh and accused Hardeep Singh was giving kick blows to Binder Singh”. Injury No.3 in Accused No.2, the statement of Dr. HS Hayer PW2 read as under: “3. Multiple contusion 0.5 cm x .25 cm, 14 in number present on the both side of chest.” Jaisingh P. Modi in his Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edition at page 333, Chapter XII (Injuries by Mechanical Violence) says that “Bruises or contusions are injuries which are caused by a blow from a blunt weapon, such as a club (lathi) whip, iron bar, stone, ball fingers, fist, booth, etc. or by a fall, or by crushing or compression. There are accompanied by a painful swelling and crushing or tearing of the subcutaneous tissues without solution of continuity of the skin.” If the testimony of Darshan Singh PW1, Annexure P-1 is looked into the background of the above definition of bruises or CRR No.3284 of 2009 (O&M) -3- contusions, it appears that the kick blows attributes to Hardeep Singh correspond to injury No.3. Sequelly, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the learned trial Court to re-consider the application under Section 319 in the light of the above observations within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.” Thereafter learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order on the basis of observations made by this Court in the order dated 24.10.2009. Learned counsel for the revisionist while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2009(2) SCC 696 and in the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 128(1), has argued that a co-accused should not be summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unless and until Court records a finding that there was a possibility of his conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that even a strong suspicion cannot be made ground to summon co-accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Perusal of the order dated 24.10.2009 passed by this Court would reveal that while hearing the revision this Court having examined entire material on record formed the opinion that kick blows attributed to Gurdeep Singh correspond to injury No.3, hence he must be summoned as a co-accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Once, this Court has directed the Sessions Judge to decide the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh in the light of observations made by this Court in the order of the revision dated 24.10.2009, in the opinion of this Court CRR No.3284 of 2009 (O&M) -4- learned Sessions Judge has committed no illegality while summoning the accused for the reasons recorded by this Court in the judgment dated 24.10.2009. Dismissed. However, it is clarified that any observation made by this Court in the previous order dated 24.10.2009 or today shall not prejudice the right of the revisionist during the trial. (Alok Singh) Judge January 07, 2011 R.S.