Crl. Misc. No.M-6745 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-6745 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 10-11-2010 Subhash Chand ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present:- Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Shalini Atri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr. R.S.Chahal, Advocate for respondents RAJAN GUPTA, J This petition preferred by the petitioner Subhash Chand impugning the order dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal whereby he accepted the revision preferred by respondents no. 2 to 6 and set aside the order summoning them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Brief facts of the case may be recapitulated here.A complaint was lodged by Subhash Chand stating that he had a dispute with respondents no. 2 to 6 and other accused over a piece of land. On 23.8.2004 when on his way back after attending the Court of SDM at Kaithal, he was attacked by certain accused and injuries were inflicted upon him. Subhash Chand also named respondents no. 2 to 6 as the persons who assaulted him on the said date. On the basis of his statement Crl. Misc. No.M-6745 of 2010 (O&M) 2 FIR No. 307 dated 24.8.2004 came to be registered under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC at police station Kaithal. The investigating agency after conducting detailed investigation, came to the conclusion that respondents no. 2 to 6 were not involved in the incident and thus exonerated them. It put up a challan against accused Krishan and Balwan. During the course of trial an application was moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C seeking to summon respondents no. 2 to 6 as additional accused. On the basis of statement made by Subhash Chand while deposing as PW2, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal proceeded to summon respondents no. 2 to 6 to face trial. The said order was impugned by the additional accused (respondents no. 2 to 6) before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. The said Court reversed the order on the ground that Subhash Chand had not given any new version in his statement made in the court. He had merely reiterated what has been stated by him before the police. There being no fresh evidence to show that the other accused were involved in the commission of crime, he accepted the revision petition and set aside the summoning order of respondents no .2 to 6 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Liberty was however given to the prosecution to move application for summoning additional accused in case any fresh material came before the trial court during the course of trial. Aggrieved, complainant Subhash Chand has impugned the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that complainant Subhash Chand when he stepped in witness box as PW2 clearly named all the accused and attributed specific role to them, including respondents no. 2 to 6. According to him despite this evidence Crl. Misc. No.M-6745 of 2010 (O&M) 3 being on record, the revisional Court had committed an error in exonerating the additional accused. Learned counsel for the State has however supported the conclusion arrived at by the investigating agency. She has referred to reply filed by way of affidavit of Kuldeep Singh, DSP, Kaithal filed before this Court that a thorough investigation was conducted in the matter. It was found that except the oral version of the complainant, there was no other evidence to support his statement. She has further submitted that a joint statement of 40 villagers was recorded wherein it has been clearly stated by them that respondents no. 2 to 6 were very much present in the village Chhuarpur Majri on the date of occurrence while the incident took place in Sector 19, Kaithal. She has further submitted that even the medico legal report shows that the complainant suffered only blunt injuries in that occurrence and he could not have been assaulted by so many accused simultaneously. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 6 has reiterated the arguments advanced by the learned State counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given thoughtful consideration to the matter. It is evident that Subhash Chand when stepped into witness box as PW2 only reiterated what he had said to the police in his first version. No new material came up before the court to arrive at a conclusion that other accused were also involved in the occurrence. On the basis of the initial version a detailed investigation was conducted by the investigating agency and statements of various persons in the village were recorded. On that basis, the investigating agency put in challan against two accused namely Krishan and Balwan. Others were Crl. Misc. No.M-6745 of 2010 (O&M) 4 found innocent. I am thus of the considered view that no fresh material came on record to support the version given by the complainant. The impugned order, thus, does not call for any interference. The test laid down by the Apex Court in Michael Machado vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2000(2) RCR (Crl) 79 is not satisfied to reach at the conclusion that additional accused need to be summoned to face the trial. There is no material on record to show that there is reasonable possibility of conviction of the additional accused on the basis of evidence before the Court. The petition is thus without merit and is hereby dismissed. November 10 , 2010 (Rajan Gupta) rekha Judge