IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Rev 2809 of 2010 Date of decision: 11.10.2010 Gurvant Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent Present: Mr Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. S.S.SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.8.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for summoning Harbans Singh as additional accused in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC – for short) has been declined. The petitioner – Gurvant Singh lodged the FIR in the preent case alleging that on the date of the incident i.e. 7.3.2010 at about 7.30 p.m., the petitioner along with his brother – Sukhjinder Singh as also Kamaljit Singh and Sukhwinder Singh were sitting on the wall of the Primary School of the village after playing Volleyball. They were talking amongst themselves. Then Harbans Singh (whose summoning is sought), Surinder Singh, Jagtar Singh @ Kala and Lakhbir Singh @ Lakhi as also Harvinder Singh @ Pappa came on two motorcycles and on reaching, started abusing them. When the complainant asked for the reason for abusing, then Criminal Rev 2809 of 2010 2 Harvinder Singh attacked him with his Kirpan. The complainant tried to ward off the blow by raising his hand and in the process, both his hands were injured. Thereafter, Surinder Singh gave a Danda blow hitting on the right ankle of the complainant. Jagtar Singh took out a country made pistol and fired on the complainant. The complainant (petitioner) ducked down and the shot went over him. Thereafter, Jagtar Singh fired another shot at Sukhwinder Singh on his face and then he fired repeated shots. Thereafter, Lakhbir Singh hit Sukhwinder Singh repeatedly with an iron pipe held by him. Harbans singh and Surinder Singh inflicted injuries to Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh with their Dandas. After hearing the noise of the fight and gun shots, numerous persons from the village gathered at the spot. The accused then ran away from the spot after leaving their Kirpan. The role that is attributed to accused Harbans Singh is that he caused injuries with his Danda to Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh. During investigation he was found innocent and not sent up for trial. The statement (P1) of the petitioner Gurvant Singh – complainant was recorded in which he has reiterated his stand as mentioned in the FIR. However, so far as the role of accused Harbans Singh is concerned, it is alleged in the statement (P1) by Gurvant Singh – complainant that he and Surinder Singh had wooden handles of spades and they caused injuries with the same to the complainant and his brother – Sukhjinder Singh. It may be noticed that in the FIR, it is alleged by the complainant that Harbans Singh and Surinder Singh inflicted injuries to Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh with their Dandas. However, while appearing as PW1, the complainant – Gurvant Singh has stated that injuries were inflicted by Harbans Singh and Criminal Rev 2809 of 2010 3 Surinder Singh to him (complainant) and Sukhjinder Singh. The name of Sukhwinder Singh is not mentioned. Therefore, there are apparent inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statement of the complainant as mentioned in the FIR and in his statement (P1) while deposing in Court. The learned Sessions Judge, in his impugned order dated 20.8.2010 has observed that Harbans Singh is serving in the Haryana Roadways and if he is summoned as an accused and sent to custody, then he may be put under suspension and face departmental action. It is also noticed that when the complainant lodged the report with the Police, he has not alleged that Harbans Singh raised a Lalkara but while appearing as PW1 he stated the said fact. It was observed that it appeared that due to over-enthusiasm and to create more evidence against Harbans Singh, an improvement was made by him in his statement (P1) while appearing in the Court. Besides, it was noticed that in case Harbans Singh had caused injuries to the complainant, there was no reason for him not to state the said fact before the Police. In the circusmtnaces, it was observed that except for the statement of the complainant, there was no other evidence to support the allegations. The reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge in his impugned order dated 20.8.2010 are sound and call for no interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The evidence and material that has been produced on record is not such from which a reasonable satisfaction can be drawn that Harbans Singh, who is sought to be summoned as an additional accused, has committed the offence. There are discrepancies in the statements of the complainant-petitioner – Gurvant Singh as recorded by the Police and deposed before the Court, which have been noticed above. Criminal Rev 2809 of 2010 4 In the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.8.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala which has been passed on sound reasoning. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 11.10.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge