CRR No.2552 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.2552 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.10.2009 Raj Kanwar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition against the order dated 10th August, 2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby prayer for summoning one Pooja as additional accused to face trial under Sections 148, 302, 342, 506, 149 IPC, has been declined. The FIR was lodged by one Raj Kanwar son of Rajbir Singh. He stated that on 26th September, 2008, they saw his uncle tied with a tree. He was being beaten by Krishan armed with an iron rod, Satish with a wicket, Umed with a Danda, Babli with a Rapri, Anju and Pooja with Dandas. According to the complainant, he watched the entire incident by peeping through the door. After the occurrence, the assailants ran away. The uncle of the complainant, however, died immediately thereafter. During the course of trial, Raj Kanwar stepped into the witness-box as PW1 and deposed for the prosecution. He stated CRR No.2552 of 2009 2 that the deceased was beaten up by the accused, who were armed with various weapons. According to him, Pooja was armed with a Danda. This witness was cross-examined. During his cross-examination, he submitted that he did not know whether the age of Pooja was 13-14 years. He thereafter volunteered that she was 15-16 years of age. On the basis of the statement made by Raj Kanwar PW1, the instant application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution for summoning Pooja as additional accused. The Additional Sessions Judge, however, rejected the application and observed that mere allegation, which may appear in the statement of overzealous witness cannot form basis for summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the witness Raj Kanwar had clearly attributed a role to Pooja in the commission of crime. Thus, she ought to have been summoned to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed with the petition. The witness Raj Kanwar stated before the court that his uncle Rajinder was tied with a tree with the help of a rope and a cloth was also tied on his mouth. Krishan, Satish, Umed, Babli, Anju and Pooja were standing there and thereafter they started beating him. According to the witness, Pooja was armed with a Danda. On a specific question being put to this witness in his cross-examination regarding the age of Pooja, he stated that he did not know whether she was 13-14 CRR No.2552 of 2009 3 years of age. He then volunteered that she may be 15-16 years of age. In my considered view, the statement made by Raj Kanwar PW1 does not appear to be sufficient for the purpose of summoning Pooja as an additional accused. The investigating agency after conducting a thorough investigation, came to the conclusion that accused Pooja was innocent. In my considered view, no such evidence has come on record to show that Pooja inflicted any particular injury to the deceased. The witness Raj Kanwar has stated her age to be 15-16 years. Merely on the basis of his statement, no ground for summoning Pooja as an additional accused is made out. I, thus, find no legal infirmity with the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. The revision petition is, thus, dismissed. Learned counsel, however, drew my attention to certain observations made by the court below in para 7 of the impugned order regarding the persons already facing trial. According to the counsel, the trial court has observed that allegations against the said accused were also vague in nature. He has, thus, prayed that the same may not be taken into consideration at the time of final decision on merits. It is evident that in para 7, the court below has made certain observations regarding the accused already facing trial. In my considered view, there was no occasion for the trial court to make any observation as regards the other accused while disposing of the instant application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The same are thus totally CRR No.2552 of 2009 4 uncalled for. It is thus made clear that the observation made in the impugned order regarding rest of the accused shall have no bearing on the merits at the stage of final decision of the case. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE October 05, 2009 'rajpal'