IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev.2164 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 4, 2008 MAHABIR PARSHAD ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. NS Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Sidarath Sarup, AAG, Haryana. Mr. APS Deol, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. RS Saini, Advocate, for respondents 2 to 5. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against order dated 17.10.2007 whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, for summoning additional accused. The application was filed by the prosecution. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner- complainant is that the FIR version also indicates involvement of Ajay Kumar and Dharambir (brothers-in-law of the deceased), Santosh (sister-in- law of the deceased) and Umed Singh (husband of another sister-in-law of the deceased). In such circumstances, when Mahabir Parshad (complainant), examined as PW-1, had endorsed the same story, the said persons ought to have been summoned as there was sufficient evidence Criminal Rev.2164 of 2007 2 indicating their culpability. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. The trial court has considered various factors while not accepting the case of the prosecution viz. Bajrang Lal (brother of the deceased) had earlier given a version on 27.7.2006. As per the statement, he had gone to Village Nangal Mala 20/25 days prior to the occurrence and his sister requested him to take her to Village Kundal but mother-in- law of the deceased had refused to send the deceased. It was stated by Bajrang Lal that family life of Nisha Devi (deceased) was smooth and there was nothing of the sort of dowry demand. Subsequently, however, Bajrang Lal changed the version while giving the statement under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure. The other aspect taken into account is that the police recorded the disclosure statement of Itwa, domestic help in the house, who is an accused in the case and facing trial, to the effect that he had developed illicit relations with Nisha Devi and on the intervening night of 26/27.7.2007, accused Manohar Lal and Kamla Devi had made him get up and had taken him to the room of Nisha Devi. The said Itwa held the deceased by her feet whereas Kamla Devi caught her waist and Manohar Lal pressed her throat. Presuming that Nisha Devi had died, they went to sleep. In the morning, Nisha Devi was found screaming and was taken to the hospital. She, subsequently, died on 15.9.2006. With regard to Umed, husband of another sister-in-law, it has been observed that he was residing in a Village in Rajasthan. Santosh, Criminal Rev.2164 of 2007 3 sister-in-law of the deceased, was married and living in her matrimonial home at another place. Dharambir, brother-in-law of the deceased, was present on duty in Special Task Force, Transport Department, GNCT, Delhi, with effect from 25.7.2006 to 31.7.2006. There is documentary evidence in this regard. In regard to Ajay Kumar, another brother-in-law, it has been observed that he was on Home Guard duty from 21.7.2006 to 31.7.2006 and there is documentary evidence in this regard also. Both Dharambir and Ajay Kumar are government servants and it is evident from the material available on the record that they were not present at the place of occurrence. Having regard to the reasons given by the trial Court, I do not find any occasion to interfere with the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants this court to re-appreciate evidence and come to a different conclusion, which ordinarily, would not be conducive in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 4, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE