CRR No.3056 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CRR No.3056 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.04.2011 Rameshwar @ Patwari ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana for the State. ... Alok Singh, J (Oral). Revisionist is assailing the order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, summoning the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Prosecution story, inter-alia, is that Ram Kumar son of Har Dayal was an agriculturist of village Badopal. He had eight brothers and all were residing separately in different Dhanis. Chhinder Pal (since deceased) was his brother and who used to work as a repairer of tubewells. On CRR No.3056 of 2010 2 3.12.2009, his brother Chhinderpal went to repair the engine of tubewell of Bajrang son of Purkha Ram. But he did not return back home. Earlier also, he used to stay in the Dhani of Bajrang as and whenever he visited the later at night. At about 11 a.m., his brother Balwant received a call on his mobile from Om Parkash with regard to the dead body of Chhinderpal lying in the field of Chanan Ram near the tubewell of Sohan. On receiving that information, the complainant alongwith his brother Pappu went there and saw the dead body of their brother Chhinder Pal having his face mutilated. It is the further case of prosecution that on enquiry, they came to know that at about 8 p.m., Chhinderpal went to the Dhani of Ram Singh to recover the balance amount of a sum of Rs.2000/- from him. An altercation took place there. Rameshwar @ Patwari from his Dhani also came out and exhorted that the deceased would not go alive from that place. Their brother was done to death with lathis and other weapons of offence. There was no enmity of their brother Chhinderpal with either of the families of Ram Singh and Rameshwar @ Patwari. But since he demanded money from them, so, he was done to death. A statement in this regard dated 4.11.2009 was made by Ram Kumar complainant with the police and which led to registration of case in hand. During investigations, accused Ram Singh was arrested on 6.12.2009. After due investigations, the police filed a charge-sheet against him for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. During the trial, prosecution has examined Roshni as PW1, Ram Kumar as PW2 and Pappu as PW3 and thereafter, moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the revisionist as additional accused to face trial for commission of murder of Chhinder Pal CRR No.3056 of 2010 3 alongwith other accused. Learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order was pleased to summon the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial for an offence under Section 302/34 IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that present is a case of blind murder. Roshni PW1 did not support the case of the prosecution. PW2 Ram Kumar has stated that from enquiry from neighbour Dhanis, he came to know that Rameshwar and Ram Singh had left their houses and absconding. He has no where stated that he has seen Rameshwar causing any injury on the body of the deceased. Likewise, PW3 Pappu has stated that in the evening when he was coming from his fields, he has seen that Ram Singh and Chhinder Pal were quarreling near the Dhanis of Ram Singh. He has not seen either Ram Singh or revisionist causing any injury on the body of the deceased. He has further stated that from enquiry from the neighbour, he found that Ram Singh and Rameshwar have committed murder of Chhinder Pal. This Court in Crl. Revision No.1286 of 2009, decided on 22.3.2011, while discussing various judgements of the Apex Court has observed that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great great caution and very sparingly and only when Court finds that entire evidence, if accepted in toto and if stands unrebutted would lead to the conviction of the accused sought to be summoned and further if Court opines that trial of person sought to be summoned seems to be justified. As observed hereinabove, in the present case, none has seen the revisionist committing the murder of Chhinder Pal. This is a case where CRR No.3056 of 2010 4 PW2 and PW3 have stated on oath that on enquiry they have found Chhinder Pal was murdered by Ram Singh and Rameshwar. There is no eye witness of the incident. It is also settled principle of law that circumstantial last seen evidence is very weak type of evidence. Even if it is assumed that PW3 Pappu has seen the revisionist and Ram Singh quarreling with Chhinder Pal deceased on the previous evening, would not amount that quarrel would have resulted in the murder of Chhinder Pal. It is not explained or clarified by the PW3 Pappu as to why he has not intervened between the deceased and the accused to stop their quarrel. It is not stated that either Ram or Rameshwar – revisionist were armed with lathis or any weapon. In the opinion of this Court, learned trial Court has passed the impugned order without caring the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C. Statements of PW2 and PW3 do not warrant exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the revisionist to face trial for an offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Order impugned cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Revision petition is allowed. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding present revision and shall not prejudice the trial against Ram Singh. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 18.04.2011 sk.