Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 511 (PNJ)

Satbir Singh v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-21

GURDEV SINGH

body2010
Judgment GURDEV SINGH, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court)Karnal, vide which he dismissed the application filed under Sec.319 of the code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code")by Satbir singh-complainant, for summoning Vidya Rattan, Pardip Kumar and Kamla as an additional accused to stand their trial with other accused for the offences under Sections 302/304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "ipc") in respect of which FIR No.240 dated 22.10.2009 was registered under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC in Police Station indri, District Karnal. 2. The brief facts are that, on 22.10.2008, complainant, father of the Manju-deceased, made a statement before the Officer Incharge, Police station, Indri, that he had married the deceased to Kuldeep, son of Vidya rattan on 16.2.2008 and at that time he had given sufficient dowry beyond his capacity. After about two months, Kuldeep made a demand of Maruti car on telephone and he told him that he was not having the capacity of giving such a car. On 16.10.2008, that accused accompanied by the deceased came to his village on the eve of Karva Chauth and he again pressed for his demand of car and thereafter he was told by the deceased that Kuldeep had been harassing her for bringing a car from her parents. On 22.10.2008, at about 4.15 p. m. , he was told by Vidya Rattan that the deceased was seriously ill and was admitted in the hospital. He accompanied by his wife, Bimla and son Sumit and others went to the village of the accused and came to know that the deceased had been murdered by Kuldeep, his parents, Vidya Rattan, Kamla and younger brother pradip by giving blows with the help of axe on head and neck under the greed of dowry. On the basis of that statement, FIR was recorded under Sections 304-B and 120-B IPC. During the post mortem examination, injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased and it was opined by the doctor that cause of death was hemorrhage and shock resulting from those injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. After investigation, the offence under Sec.302 IPC was also added against the accused. During the post mortem examination, injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased and it was opined by the doctor that cause of death was hemorrhage and shock resulting from those injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. After investigation, the offence under Sec.302 IPC was also added against the accused. Vidya Rattan, Kamla and Pardip Kumar were not challaned by the police and the report under Sec.173 of the Code was filed only against kuldeep. During trial, statements of Satbir Singh complainant, PW-1 and Sumit, pw-2, were recorded and thereafter the aforesaid application was moved by that complainant which was dismissed vide the aforesaid order dated 11.11.2009, on the ground that the complainant has tried to implicate the accused by stating that they killed his daughter in furtherance of their common intention under the greed of money and that there was not a single allegation of demand of dowry, what to say of specific allegation, against these three persons, whom the complainant wanted to be summoned as an additional accused and that there was no reasonable prospects of recording of the conviction on the evidence produced during the trial. 3. Notice of the revision was given to the respondents, who came present through their counsel and contested the same. I have heard learned counsel for the both the sides. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner while appearing in the trial court as PW-1, specifically stated that Vidya Rattan, Kamla and Pradip Kumar had been raising demand of the car and they along with Kuldeep murdered the deceased by giving axe blows on her head and neck. That statement of the complainant has been corroborated by Sumit PW-2. From that evidence, it appears that all these three accused also committed the offence under Sec.302 IPC and in the alternative under Sec.304-B IPC. They are, therefore, liable to be summoned as an additional accused to be tried along with Kuldeep accused. 4. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned counsel Crl. Revision No.3176 of 2009 -4- for the respondents that the deceased was never murdered in the presence of the complainant-PW-1 or Sumit PW-2. The statement made by them to that effect are only hearsay and conviction of the respondents cannot be recorded under Sec.302 IPC on the basis of those statements. Revision No.3176 of 2009 -4- for the respondents that the deceased was never murdered in the presence of the complainant-PW-1 or Sumit PW-2. The statement made by them to that effect are only hearsay and conviction of the respondents cannot be recorded under Sec.302 IPC on the basis of those statements. There is no prospects of conviction of the accused on the basis of that evidence. Neither there is any allegation in the FIR nor these two witnesses have deposed in the court that the respondents were harassing the deceased or treated her with cruelty on the ground of demand of dowry soon before her death. Therefore, it cannot be said that from that evidence, offence under section 304-B IPC is made out against the respondents. Additional accused can be summoned under Sec.319 of the Code if, from the evidence produced before the court, it appears that he or she committed an offence for which he/she is liable to be tried with other accused. It is now well settled that power under this Section should be exercised sparingly and there must be reasonable grounds for coming to the conclusion that conviction of the accused can be recorded on the basis of the evidence so produced before the court. The court is to exercise its discretion judiciously for summoning the additional accused. It is very much clear from the perusal of the impugned order that the learned additional Sessions Judge had minutely gone through the evidence produced during the trial before dismissing the application. He discussed the statements of Satbir Singh, PW-1 and Sumit, PW-2 in his order and it is very much clear that they did not state before the court that the deceased was being harassed or treated with cruelty by the respondents on the ground of demand of dowry soon before her death. No doubt they stated that the demand of car was being made by the respondents but they did not state that the same was being demanded as dowry or that they had also been harassing or treating the deceased with cruelty on that ground. No doubt they stated that the demand of car was being made by the respondents but they did not state that the same was being demanded as dowry or that they had also been harassing or treating the deceased with cruelty on that ground. Therefore, it cannot be said that it appears from the evidence that the respondents committed offence under Sec.304-B IPC So far as the offence under Sec.302 IPC is concerned, it was only at the end of the statement that it was stated by the complainant that these respondents in furtherance of their common intention killed his daughter under the greed of dowry. He himself had not seen the respondents committing that murder. It can easily be gathered that, that part of his statement is merely a hearsay evidence. On the basis thereof, it cannot be said that the respondents committed offence under Sec.302 IPC. 5. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any illegality. Neither it is incorrect nor it can be said that the propriety required that such an order should not have been passed. There is no ground for setting aside that order while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.