CRR-686-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] ::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-686-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:29.08.2011. Balbir Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. B.P.S.Virk, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent No.2. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.01.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur by which the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The FIR No.95 dated 06.12.2009, under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 34 IPC of Police Station Ghoman was registered on the complaint of Malook Singh son of Dharam Singh in which he had alleged that they are three brothers who are agriculturist and have their residence in their fields. The family of Aasa Singh son of Daulat Singh etc. also lives at about 2 Killas away and the boundaries of their fields are common. There has been dispute of cutting the edges of the boundary of the common fields between the parties. On 05.12.2009, at about 7.30 a.m., Mehal Singh son of Daulat Singh was cultivating his fields by his tractor, whereas Aasa Singh was cutting edges of the boundary of the common fields with kahi. When he tried CRR-686-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] ::::::: to stop him, a scuffle took place and then Mehal Singh also came there. Balbir Singh and Kulbir Singh alias Bau were armed with gandasis, Jasbir Kaur alias Jass Kaur was armed with danda and Mehal Singh brought dattar from his tractor. Jasbir Kaur alias Jass Kaur raised a lalkara that they should be taught a lesson. Jasbir Kaur alias Jass Kaur caught him from the back side and Mehal Singh gave a dattar blow which fell on the palm of his right hand. Kulbir Singh alias Bau attacked with reverse side of gandasi which fell on the left side of his head. Balbir Singh threw him on the ground by pulling his hair and gave blows from the reverse side of the gandasi which fell on the right side of his back and Jasbir Kaur alias Jass Kaur also gave danda blows on the left side of his back. On making hue and cry, his nephew Gurmej Singh and brother Tarsem Singh came there to save him, but Aasa Singh gave a kahi blow to Gurmej Singh which fell on his mouth and caused bleeding. Balbir Singh gave injury to his brother Tarsem Singh. When the other people raised noise, the assailants ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. After completing the investigation, the police presented the challan, but the petitioners herein were kept in column no.2 on the basis of an inquiry conducted by DSP, Kadian. The prosecution examined Malook Singh as PW1. He had categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that Jasbir Kaur alias Jass Kaur caught hold of him and Mehal Singh gave a dattar blow which fell on the palm of his right hand. Balbir Singh caught hold of him from his hair and threw him on the ground and he alongwith Kulbir Singh alias Bau gave gandasi blows which fell on the left side of his head. He also referred to the injuries suffered by Gurmej Singh etc. and the role of the respective assailants. The witness was cross-examined only with regard to the role of Balbir Singh, but nothing has been asked about the role of Kulbir Singh alias Bau and Jasbir Kaur alias Jass Kaur. After the statement of PW1 was over, learned Public Prosecutor made a request that he wanted to move an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short “Cr.P.C.”]. The application was filed to which reply was also filed by the petitioners/accused and the learned Court below, vide its CRR-686-2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] ::::::: impugned order, summoned all the three petitioners herein as the additional accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Court below has committed an error in summoning the petitioners/accused on the basis of statement of the complainant which was recorded by the police and has been reiterated in the Court. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case Hukam Chand and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 141. He further submits that the Court should not have summoned the accused mechanically without recording its reasonable satisfaction as there is no compelling duty on the part of the Court to proceed against the other persons as well who have not been sent up as accused for the purpose of trial. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 75. Lastly, it is argued that the petitioners have already been absolved by the investigating agency upon an inquiry conducted by the DSP, Kadian, therefore, they could not have been summoned by the Court. In reply, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that insofar as the inquiry report submitted by the DSP, Kadian absolving the petitioners is concerned, it would not take precedence over the findings recorded by the Judicial Court. In this regard, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2009(1) Criminal Court Cases 911. It is also submitted that if the Court is satisfied from the evidence adduced before it that a person against whom no charge had been framed, but whose complicity appears to be clear, he should be tried together with the accused. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Pal Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2009(3) Criminal Court Cases 627. It is also submitted that the statement of the witness in examination-in-chief is generally the same which is recorded before the police and it is for the defence to demolish his veracity in the cross-examination and if no question is put with regard CRR-686-2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] ::::::: to the role attributed to the other accused in defence, then it is presumed that the statement made in the examination-in-chief is prima facie sufficient to believe that the additional accused is involved in the commission of crime. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. Insofar as the judgments cited by both the learned counsel for the parties are concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law but before applying these judgments, it is relevant to refer to the facts of the present case. In this case, the complainant Mehal Singh had initially named the present petitioners as the assailants and he described specific role to the specific person of causing specific injuries, but in an inquiry, the DSP, Kadian absolved the petitioners and as such they were not sent up as accused to face the trial. It is provided under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. that in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. In the present case, during the trial, the complainant was examined as PW1 who is the injured eye witness as well and had reiterated the same stand which was taken by him earlier before the police, but the learned defence counsel did not ask any question to him about the alleged role of Kulbir Singh alias Bau and Jasbir Kaur alias Jass Kaur. There is no cross-examination in this regard, rather the only question has been put with regard to the role of Balbir Singh that too on the basis of previous statement (Ex.PA). Moreover, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the petitioners have been absolved by the DSP, Kadian in his inquiry, they cannot be summoned on the statement of the injured witness who has been cross-examined also by the defence is concerned, I am in full agreement with the ratio of law in Paramjit Singh's case (supra) in which it has been held that finding of exoneration recorded by the investigating agency cannot be given CRR-686-2011 (O&M) [ 5 ] ::::::: precedence over the finding recorded by a Judicial Court on the basis of contents of complaint, first information report and also substantive testimony of complainant during trial who withstand the cross-examination. The learned Court below has specifically recorded in its impugned order that “if evidence given by PW1 Malook Singh remains unrebutted, it is sufficient to convict these persons”. The learned Trial Court has, thus, recorded its satisfaction about the role played by the petitioners which also satisfies the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Michael Machado and another's case (supra) with regard to reasonable satisfaction of the Court from the evidence already collected which is to be seen by the Court for the purpose of summoning a person as an additional accused. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. August 29, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE