Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 986 (PNJ)

Sham Lal v. State of Haryana

2004-08-31

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - The petitioners have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 18.8.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula on an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code, vide which they have been summoned under Sections 328, 342 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code for facing the trial in Sessions case No. 8/26.04.2004 on FIR No. 30 dated 17.2.2004. 2. In this case, FIR No. 30 dated 17.2.2004 under Sections 328, 307, 342, 376 and 34 Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Sector 9, Panchkula, on the basis of the statement made by Ms. Amrita aged about 21 years. In the FIR, specific allegations have been leveled against both the petitioners to the effect that they caught hold of her and put some poisonous substance in her mouth forcibly with the help of two labourers. 3. During investigation, both the petitioners were found innocent and were accordingly place in column No. 2. However, the charge-sheet was filed against accused Jagpal alone under Sections 328/376 Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the prosecution after examination of some witnesses in which the evidence came against the petitioners, moved an application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code for summoning both the petitioners, which was allowed by the trial Court, while observing as under :- "After hearing the learned PP and the learned defence counsel for accused Jagpal and going through the case file carefully, I am of the considered opinion that application in question deserves to be allowed. The complainant, when appeared as PW8, clearly named Shak and Jagtar to be the persons, who, with the help of two labourers, administered some poisonous substance to her forcibly by catching hold of her. The copy of MLR of the complainant is Ex.PD. It was recorded in the said medico-legal report Ex.PD that she had a history of giving some poisonous material liquid about 5 to 10 cc by some persons on 17.2.2004 at 11.30 A.M. The gastric lavage fluid was taken at the time of medical examination of the complainant and was sent for chemical analysis in the sealed parcel. The report Ex.PE from the FSL, Madhuban has been received and as per the same, Organo phosphorus pesticide was detected. The report Ex.PE from the FSL, Madhuban has been received and as per the same, Organo phosphorus pesticide was detected. Now, there is a clear cut statement on oath of the complainant regarding the fact that she was administered the poisonous substance forcibly by Sham and Jagtar with the help of two labourers. Her statement on oath is corroborated by the report from FSL, Madhuban because Organo phosphorus pesticide was detected in the samples analysed. Thus, it appears from the evidence available on the record that Sham and Jagtar, not being the accused, have committed the offences punishable under Sections 328 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they be tried together with accused Jagpal. Section 319(1) Criminal Procedure Code gives power to the court to add any person, not an accused before it, as an accused and direct him to be tried along with the other accused provided the evidence on record is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against such a person. At this stage, the court is not required to see if the evidence is sufficient for his ultimate conviction. In the present case, it appears from the evidence produced at the trial that Sham and Jagtar, not being the accused, have committed the offences punishable under Sections 328 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for which, they could be tried together with accused Jagpal." 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record of the case. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no sufficient evidence before the trial Court for summoning the petitioners under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code as the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix against both the petitioners are false and concocted. Counsel further contends that the petitioners have been summoned only on the basis of examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix without she was being cross-examined by the defence. 6. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any substance in either of the contentions raised by him. The additional accused can be summoned on the basis of the statement made by a witness in examination-in- chief, if from the same it appears to the Court that the summoned accused are involved in the offence. 6. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any substance in either of the contentions raised by him. The additional accused can be summoned on the basis of the statement made by a witness in examination-in- chief, if from the same it appears to the Court that the summoned accused are involved in the offence. In this case, not only the statement of the prosecutrix is there but the statement of the doctor has also corroborated her version. 7. In view of the afore-said, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 18.8.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, vide which both the petitioners have been summoned as accused for facing the trial along with the other accused. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.