Crl. Revision No.1675 of 2011 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1675 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision: 19.08.2011 Bishan Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) This revision petition is directed against order dated 03.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby the application of the petitioner, for summoning additional accused, was declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from the MLR of deceased-Tejpal, it is clear that number of injuries were caused on the person of deceased indicating that several persons were involved in assaulting him. Referring to the statement of Bishan Singh-complainant, who lodged the FIR and stepped into witness-box as PW-7, he submits that Bishan Singh had clearly named all the accused. Thus, Dharmender, Jitender, Subhash, Ravinder, Bhupender, Smt. Bimlesh, Smt. Saroj and Smt. Nawal Dai deserve to be summoned in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that occurrence pertains to 04.08.2008. At about 4.15 p.m., the accused allegedly assaulted Jagdish (brother of the complainant) Crl. Revision No.1675 of 2011 (O & M) ::2:: at common chowk at village Durgapur. Some of the accused were armed with rifles, pistols, farsa and rods, etc. While some of the accused fired from their rifles/pistol, no gun-shot injury was caused. However, as a result of other injuries sustained by Tejpal, he died on 13.08.2008. After registration of FIR, investigation ensued and the investigating agency came to the conclusion that five accused namely Nain Singh @ Nem Singh, Nihal Singh, Kamal Singh, Kaptan Singh and Niranjan were guilty of commission of crime and others namely Dharmender, Jitender, Subhash, Ravinder, Bhupender, Smt. Bimlesh, Smt. Saroj and Smt. Nawal Dai were not guilty. During the trial of the case, petitioner stepped into witness-box as PW-7 and named the additional accused. The application preferred by the petitioner was, however, dismissed by the court below on the ground that all the additional accused, sought to be impleaded, belong to the same family and, thus, complainant (PW-7) had deposed only to cast the net wider with a view to implicate additional accused. Besides, one of the prosecution witness namely Kiran Singh (PW-9) had not supported the prosecution version. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out how there is reasonable probability of conviction of the persons sought to be impleaded as additional accused. Apart from the statement of complainant (PW-7), there is no other evidence to show complicity of additional accused namely Dharmender, Jitender, Subhash, Ravinder, Bhupender, Smt. Bimlesh, Smt. Saroj and Smt. Nawal Dai in the commission of crime. In my considered view, there is no infirmity, legally or otherwise Crl. Revision No.1675 of 2011 (O & M) ::3:: with the order passed by the court below. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Since the matter has been heard on merits, delay in filing the revision petition is deemed to have been condoned. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 19, 2011 sukhpreet