IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2615 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 8, 2011 Daya Ram and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the complainant. * * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners, who have been summoned as co-accused on the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr. P.C.. vide order dated 08.09.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that while issuing notice of motion in the case on 28.01.2010, this Court had dismissed the petition qua petitioner No.1-Daya Ram. The present petition, thus, survives qua Kayyum, Amar Chand, Beg Raj, who are petitioners 2 to 4. It is contention of the counsel for the petitioners that there is no additional evidence before the trial Court which would have persuaded the Court to summon the petitioners as co-accused. His contention is that the witnesses, who appeared before the trial Court, namely PW1- Sohan Singh and PW2-Net Ram, reiterated the statements given by them before the police and rather had made additions and improvements therein qua the petitioners and thus contends that the position remains the same. As regard Beg Raj-petitioner No.4, counsel raised an additional plea that he is neither named in the FIR nor in the statement given under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and has been straight way named as one of the persons, who had Criminal Revision No. 2615 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - given a blow along with other accused persons. He contends that the order impugned in the present revision petition cannot be sustained. His submission is that the petitioners are working at Sumer Petrol Pump, which is opposite to the house of the complainant party and they out of anxiety, when the fight broke out between the brothers, had reached the spot and they have been falsely involved in the present case. Further contends that in the statement given by the witnesses before the trial Court, no specific injury has been attributed to Kayyum-petitioner No.2. On this basis, he prays for setting aside the impugned order qua petitioners 2 to 4. Reliance in support of the contention that evidence should be led before the trial Court and same should be indicative of the involvement of the person, who is to be arrayed as an accused along with other, has been placed on the Supreme Court judgment Saroben Ashwinkumar Shah Etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and others(SC) 2011 (3) RCR (Criminal) page 852. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has submitted that petitioners No. 2 and 3 are specifically named in the FIR and in statements given under Section 161 Cr. P.C. They have been attributed specific role. As the petitioners have been directly involved in the commission of the offence for which they have been summoned by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution before the trial Court. The factum that Beg Raj has not been named in the FIR under Section 161 Cr. P.C. could not be disputed by the counsel for the respondent. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. The evidence which have been led by the prosecution before the trial Court on an application moved under Section 319 Cr. P.C. by the prosecution, has been discussed by the court. Perusal of the same does not leave any manner of doubt with regard to the fact that petitioners 2 and Criminal Revision No. 2615 of 2009 (O&M) - 3 - 3 appear to be involved in the commission of offence for which they have been summoned by the trial Court. Not only before the trial Court, the witnesses i.e. Sohan Singh-PW1 and Net Ram-PW2 have attributed specific role and involvement of these petitioners but in the FIR as also in the statement given under Section 161 Cr. P.C. to the police, they have been clearly named and their roles specified. Merely because there are certain discrepancies or improvement made by the witnesses before the trial Court would not affect the veracity of the statements given by them at this stage. As regards Beg Raj-petitioner No.4, there appears to be doubt relating to involvement of this petitioner, as he is neither named in the FIR nor in the statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. by the complainant or any of the eye witnesses. Even before the trial Court, no specific role has been attributed nor any injury is shown to have been caused by him. The summoning order qua this petitioner, thus, cannot be sustained. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner also requires the satisfaction of the Court that there is sufficient evidence before the trial Court indicating the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime which satisfaction has already been recorded by me qua petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld qua petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 namely Kayyum and Amar Chand. However, petition qua Beg Raj -petitioner No.4 is hereby allowed. Summoning order qua him is quashed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) November 8, 2011 JUDGE sarita