Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 106 (PNJ)

Bula Ram v. State of Haryana

2013-02-04

SABINA

body2013
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) challenging the order dated 1.9.2011 (Annexure P-4) vide which the Court of Revision had allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 2 challenging the order passed by the Trial court dated 13.5.2010 dismissing the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. qua the petitioners. 2. Respondent No. 2 has lodged the FIR No. 79 dated 19.10.2003 under Section 148, 149, 323, 452, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short), registered at Police Station Jatusana, District Rewari. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that at about 2.30 P.M., on 19.10.2003, Jai Singh, Inderjeet, Poonam, Subhash, Diwan Singh, Rambir, Lal Singh, Urmila Devi, Mahavir and Bullar Ram armed with jelly, farsi and lathi, came to the well near Killa No. 4 of the complainant and were about to lift the khad (fertilizer) lying there belonging to the complainant. When the complainant told them not to do so, they started abusing him. Complainant immediately entered his room. The assailants also entered the room. Jai Singh caused injury on the head and left hand of the complainant with jelly. Subhash gave a jelly blow on the head of the complainant. Diwan gave farsi blow on the little finger of the left hand of the complainant. Babu Lal and Rambir dragged the complainant from the room. Mahesh caused injury with a lathi on the nose of the complainant. Inderjeet gave a lathi blow on the left eye of the complainant. Mahavir gave a lathi blow on the left elbow of the complainant. The said persons also caused injuries on the person of Birmati, Vidya Devi, Dharm Singh and Om Parkash (uncles of the complainant). 4. After investigation of the case, final report was presented against eight accused. Petitioners and some other accused were kept in column No. 2 at the time of presentation of challan. During the pendency of the trial, prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the said accused, who had been placed in column No.2, to face the trial as additional accused. 5. Vide order dated 13.5.2010 (Annexure P-2), the Trial Court partly allowed the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. So far as the petitioners are concerned, the said application was dismissed. 5. Vide order dated 13.5.2010 (Annexure P-2), the Trial Court partly allowed the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. So far as the petitioners are concerned, the said application was dismissed. Respondent No. 2 preferred a revision petition against the said order whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. had been dismissed qua the petitioners. The Court of Revision allowed the revision petition vide order dated 1.9.2011 (Annexure P-4). Hence, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 6. Section 319 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence:- (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard. (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” 7. Thus, as per the above provision, the Trial Court may summon any person to face the trial as an accused if there is sufficient material available against the said person during trial to proceed against him. 8. A perusal of the FIR reveals that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioners. The complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, deposed that Bula Ram had given a lathi blow on his right leg whereas Leela had given a lathi blow on his left hand. 8. A perusal of the FIR reveals that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioners. The complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, deposed that Bula Ram had given a lathi blow on his right leg whereas Leela had given a lathi blow on his left hand. A perusal of the copy of the medico legal report of Vinod Kumar-complainant, shown during the course of arguments, reveals that there are no such injuries on the person of the complainant as attributed to the petitioners. Thus, in the present case, neither the petitioners were attributed any specific injury in the FIR nor the injuries, now attributed to them, are corroborated by medical evidence. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. qua the petitioners. The Court of Revision erred in allowing the revision petition. 9. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Court of revision dated 1.9.2011, is set aside.