Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 653 (PNJ)

Shish Ram v. Raj Kumar

2013-05-20

L.N.Mittal

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Complainant Shish Ram has filed this revision petition impugning order dated 12.4.2013, Annexure P/1 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani thereby dismissing application moved by prosecution under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr. P. C.) for summoning respondent no. 1-Raj Kumar as additional accused in FIR No. 211 dated 12.11.2012, under sections 306, 202 read with section 34 IPC, Police Station Loharu, Bhiwani. 2. Petitioner lodged FIR Annexure P/2. Body of the said FIR is reproduced as under:- “To the SHO, Police Station-Loharu, Sir, I Shish Ram S/o Ram Kumar Caste Jat is the resident of village Dinod. We are two brothers. My sister Sushila w/o Jogender and Kamlesh w/o Surender sons of Bagwana r/o Kharkhari were married about 20 years back. My sister, Sushila came to our village Dinod on 08.11.2012 and she told that my (Jeth) Surender, my father-in-law Bhagwana give threat to kill me and my husband and Raj the son of my Jeth are also involved in the same. We sent her to her house at Kharkari after getting understand to here that we will come there just after the Diwali and will make them understand. Before that, today in the morning a telephonic call is received from her in laws that your daughter has died. We have complete doubt that the all the four persons killed our daughter. Applicant Sheehram Mob. 8059110552 on dated 12.11.2012.” 3. The police after investigation presented report under section 173 Cr. P.C. for prosecution of Bhagwana Ram (fahter-in-law), Jogender Singh (husband) and Surender Singh Jeth (elder brother-in-law) of the deceased whereas respondent no. 1-Raj Kumar son of Surender Singh Jeth of the deceased was found innocent. 4. During trial, prosecution moved application under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of respondent no. 1 also as additional accused. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Judge vide order Annexure P/1 which is under challenge in this revision petition. 5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the summoning of respondent no. 1 as additional accused could not be declined merely because he is government employee. The contention is untenable because the application has not been dismissed merely on this ground. 7. 5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the summoning of respondent no. 1 as additional accused could not be declined merely because he is government employee. The contention is untenable because the application has not been dismissed merely on this ground. 7. On the other hand, it has been observed that there is tendency to involve all family members particularly who are in government job. It has also been observed that there is no sufficient ground to summon respondent no. 1 as additional accused. On the other hand, perusal of the FIR as reproduced hereinbefore reveals that no role has been attributed to respondent no. 1 except that he was also named in the FIR being allegedly involved in the threat. However, threat was extended by father-in-law and Jeth of the deceased and not by respondent no. 1. No other role has either been attributed to him. Even otherwise, in view of relationship of respondent no. 1 with the deceased, it cannot be said that respondent no. 1 was involved in the alleged murder of the deceased. On the other hand, police presented report under section 173 Cr.P.C. for offence under section 306 IPC only and not under section 302 IPC although charge has been framed under section 302 IPC but the same is also under challenge in this Court by way of separate revision petition at the hands of accused who are facing trial. 8. Counsel for the petitioner referred to statement Annexure P/3 made by sister of the deceased (mother of respondent no. 1) under section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein it was stated that respondent no. 1 also some time threatened the deceased. Reference was also made to statements Annexures P/4 and P/5 made by complainant Shish Ram and one Mange Ram during trial. However, in these statements, material improvements have been made to implicate respondent no. 1. 9. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, I concur with the conclusion of trial Judge that there is no sufficient ground to summon respondent no. 1 as additional accused. The impugned order of the trial Judge does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. 10. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, I concur with the conclusion of trial Judge that there is no sufficient ground to summon respondent no. 1 as additional accused. The impugned order of the trial Judge does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. 10. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case. ---------0.B.S.0------------