CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2494 OF 2006 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 18, 2008 Abdul Shakur and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. S. Cheema, Sr.Advocate with Mr. K. S. Nalwa, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. One Jafruddin @ Nahna is facing prosecution for offences under Sections 323, 452, 506, 302 IPC with the allegation that he committed murder of Sabnam daughter of Akbar by fire arm injury after entering the house of Jabbar. The charge was framed against him and evidence is being recorded. Rashid appeared as PW1 and after recording his version, the prosecution moved an application for summoning 11 persons as additional accused for commission of this offence alongwith the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2494 OF 2006 :{ 2 }: accused, who is already facing prosecution. The persons sought to be summoned are as under:- i. Akbar, ii. Kalu, iii. Gafur, iv. Shakur sons of Hussain Khan, v. Juber, vi. Jakir, vii. Nasir. Viii. Fakru sons of Kundan @ Abdul Rahim, ix. Jabbar, x. Yunus sons of Jashmal and xi. Mubarik son of Ashu The Court, after analyzing the evidence of Rashid, accepted the prayer and has ordered that all the 11 persons be joined as additional accused to face this prosecution alongwith accused Jafruddin @ Nahna. This order is impugned through the present revision petition before this Court. While issuing notice of motion, this Court, after thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, found that no case for interference for summoning Juber, Jabbar and Mubarik, petitioner Nos.5,9 and 11 respectively, is made out. They were found to be armed with guns and had gone to the roof top from where they had resorted to firing, which has resulted in death of Shabnam. Accordingly, this revision petition qua them was dismissed and notice was issued only in respect of petitioner No.1 Abdul Shakur, petitioner No.2 Akbar, petitioner No.3 Kalu, petitioner No.4 Gafur, petitioner No.6 Jakir, petitioner No.7 Nasir, petitioner No.8 Fakru and petitioner No.10 Yunus. Mr.R.S.Cheema, learned Senior counsel has taken me through the evidence given by Rashid. A perusal of the same would show that when this witness reached near the chauraha of the road, Akbar, Kalu, Ghafoor, Shakur son of Hussain Khan, Zuber, Zakir, CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2494 OF 2006 :{ 3 }: Nassir, Faqru, Zabbar, Nahna @ Jaffru, Yunis and Mubarik son of Assu came there and surrounded him. Thereafter, the witness allegedly ran towards his house. It is at that place Jaffru @ Nahna, Jabbar, Zuber and Mubarik had used the fire arm by climbing on the roof top of the house of Jabbar. From this, learned counsel would contend that the incident, even as per the prosecution case, is in two parts. There is no role attributed to petitioner Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 8 and 10 so far as offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned. Counsel has also referred to cross-examination of the witness to say that there is no allegation against these persons so far as the first part of incident is concerned. Even the witness had not got himself medico- legally examined and only slaps and blows were allegedly used at that stage. It is also noticed that police had recorded the statement of the witness only after four days of the incident on 29.11.203. The witness had also conceded that he did not go to report the matter to the police and remained in his house only. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also find fault with the impugned order and submit that Court was not justified in relying to the cross case to say that there was a fight as that aspect has not been led in evidence through PW1. Accordingly, counsel submits that there is not sufficient material to summon these petitioners as additional accused in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments. I have considered the evidence given by PW1. It appears that the incident is in two parts. So far as offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned, there is no evidence against these petitioners to CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2494 OF 2006 :{ 4 }: connect them with said offence. There is, thus, not sufficient material and the evidence before the Court to summon these petitioners as additional accused. Therefore, this impugned order, to that extent, can not be sustained. The order summoning petitioner No.1 Abdul Shakur, petitioner No.2 Akbar, petitioner No.3 Kalu, petitioner No.4 Gafur, petitioner No.6 Jakir, petitioner No.7 Nasir, petitioner No.8 Fakru and petitioner No.10 Yunus, is set-aside. It is made clear that petitioner Nos.5,9 and 11, Juber, Jabbar and Mubarik respectively, will face prosecution for an offence under Section 302 IPC alongwith other accused. The present petition is accordingly disposed of. Needless to mention that the prosecution will have liberty to move any application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of evidence subsequently led in this case. December 18,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE