IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.2602 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 22.11.2011 Baldev Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr.M.P.S.Mann, Advocate, for the complainant. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 20.8.2010 vide which the petitioners have been summoned on an application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution as additional accused. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not named in the FIR nor any active role has been attributed to them. The complainant has not said anything against the petitioners and it is only on the statement of one Jatinder Kumar wherein he has stated that he had overheard the petitioners while they were sitting in the fields of Baldev Singh about the killing of Ajay Kumar. His further contention is that he has stated further that he had told this thing to one Surinder Kumar son of Rakha Ram but in the statement given by Surinder Kumar, there is no Crl.Rev.No.2602 of 2010 (O&M) -2- mention about such knowledge having been gained by him on an information given by Jatinder Kumar. He, on this basis, prays that the present petition be allowed. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that Jatinder Kumar is an injured witness. He was unconscious and, therefore, could not give a statement earlier and when his statement was recorded by the police, he had so stated in his statement. Even before the trial Court, Jatinder Kumar had given a statement as PW-2 where he has specifically stated that he had overheard the petitioners talking about the killing of Ajay Kumar while he was returning, after irrigating his fields, in the fields of Baldev Singh. His further contention is that merely because the petitioners have not been named in the FIR does not mean that they are not involved in the commission of offence. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present petition. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. Merely because the petitioners have not been named in the FIR would not be enough for assuming that they were not involved in the offence. Jatinder Kumar, who is an injured witness, has, in his statement before the police as well as in Court, specifically stated that he had heard the petitioners talking about killing of Ajay Kumar while they were in the fields of Baldev Singh. Merely because he has stated that he had brought this fact to the notice of Surinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar had not stated so before the police in his statement would not be enough to assume that the petitioners are not involved in the offence which is alleged to have been committed by them. The requirement of Section 319 Cr.P.C. Crl.Rev.No.2602 of 2010 (O&M) -3- has been fulfilled as it is the discretion of the Court at any stage of trial to summon any person who could be tried with other accused in the proceedings against such person for an offence which he appears to have committed. The order passed by the trial Court which is impugned in the present petition is reasonable and just and does not call for any interference in the present petition. Dismissed. November 22, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE