Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 598 (RAJ)

Liyakat v. State of Rajasthan

2013-03-20

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner complainant challenging the order dated 7.1.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balotra in Sessions Case No. 4/2012 (67/2007) State v. Mohan Singh & Ors. whereby the trial court rejected the application of the prosecution for summoning the respondents no. 2 to 9 as additional accused in the case. 2. Learned counsel submits that the first informant Barkat Khan in his F.I.R. clearly mentioned the names of the respondents as assailants. He submits that when the injured Liyakat was examined in the Court, he has specifically alleged that the respondents herein assaulted him indiscriminately and caused him a large number of injuries. He further submits that the Medical Officer Dr. Balraj Singh, P.W. 1 has mentioned that as many as 16 injuries were found on the person of the injured. Learned counsel thus submits that there is ample evidence on record to show that the respondents were equally responsible for the offences alike the charge-sheeted accused. Thus, he prays that the order impugned deserves to be quashed and the respondents no. 2 to 9 deserve to be summoned for facing trial as additional accused. He submits that the trial court has rejected the application on the ground that it was belated. He points out that Barkat Khan, the first informant and the injured Liyakat, injured were examined the trial court on 14.9.2012 and the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed immediately thereafter. He further submits that the accused sought time for filing reply to the application and the reply was submitted on 17.12.2012. Thus, he submits that the application filed by the petitioner cannot be said to be belated. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Suman v. State, reported in 2010 (1) Criminal Court Cases 269 (SC) : AIR 2010 SC 518 in support of his contention and urges that as the respondents were named right from the F.I.R. and during the investigation as well as in the sworn testimony of the3 witnesses, there cannot be any justification from excluding them from the array of the accused to stand trial for the case. 3. Per contra Mr. Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. 3. Per contra Mr. Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned and the record. The learned trial Judge has basically relied upon on the ground of delay for rejecting the application filed by the prosecution. A perusal of the proceedings would show that the complainant and the injured were examined for the first time on 14.9.2012 and immediately thereafter the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved. The first informant Barkat has mentioned the names of respondents no. 2 to 9 as assailants with the charge sheeted accused and has stuck to the story at the trial as well. The injured Liyakat was also alleged that the respondent assaulted him indiscriminately. A total of 16 injuries have been caused to the injured by the assailants in this case. Thus, the participation of a large number of accused in the incident apparent is on the face of record. Resultantly, there could not have been any justification for the Investigation Officer to have left out the names of these accused respondents from the list of charge sheeted accused in this case. In the opinion of this Court, there is sufficient material on record of the case to summon these accused persons for facing trial as additional accused in this case. 5. Resultantly, the revision succeeds. The order dated 7.1.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balotra is quashed. The trial court shall summon the respondents no. 2 to 9 for facing trial by issuing bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 40,000/-. The respondents are given liberty to surrender before the trial court within a period of two months from today and filing their bail bonds in terms of the bailable warrant. Thereafter, the trial court shall be at liberty to summon them by warrant of arrest. *******