CRR-1615-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] :::::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1615-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:27.07.2011. Baldev Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Devinder Kumar Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition has been filed against order dated 10.05.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana by which the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused to face trial in a case registered vide FIR No.32 dated 11.02.2010, under Sections 376(2)(g), 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana. In short, the allegations are that the petitioner was present in the birthday celebrations of the grandson of Munsha Singh, resident of village Kot Umra and during that function, he along with other co-accused took away the prosecutrix to the motor (tube-well) of Sulkhan Singh where they committed rape upon her in turn. Initially, while submitting challan, the petitioner was placed in column No.2 by the police, but after examination of the prosecutrix as PW1 who had categorically named the petitioner to have raped her, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short “Cr.P.C.”] which has been allowed by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case who has been absolved by the DSP(D), CRR-1615-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] :::::::::: Jagraon in his inquiry on the ground that the petitioner was present in the birthday celebrations of the grandson of Munsha Singh as he has been shown dancing and enjoying the programme in the video C.D. and other photographs of the function. He further submits that the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, namely, Hakam Singh had also given an affidavit that the petitioner was not present at the time of commission of rape. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record from which I have found that the prosecutrix has categorically named the petitioner as one of the accused who had committed rape upon her along with his other co-accused. The mere fact that the presence of the petitioner is admitted in the birthday celebrations of the grandson of Munsha Singh and that the rape was committed just nearby and further that the prosecutrix has categorically stated in her deposition before the Court that the petitioner after committing rape had also threatened her with dire consequences, it is sufficient at this stage to summon him as an additional accused to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the order of the learned Trial Court nor there is any merit in the present revision petition. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. July 27, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE