Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 32 (PNJ)

Bhim and Another v. State of Haryana

2014-01-08

INDERJIT SINGH

body2014
Inderjit Singh, J. Petitioners Bhim and Virender have filed this revision petition against the order dated 13.11.2013, passed by the trial Court, allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoning the petitioners to face the trial. It is mainly stated in this petition that earlier the petitioners were found innocent during investigation and inquiry into the allegations by Crime Branch and report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court. After recording the statements of PW1 Pardeep and PW2 Rakesh (complainant), an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved which was allowed by the trial Court. It is also stated in this petition that the trial Court has erred gravely by not even perusing the statement of PW1 Pardeep, who happens to be brother-in-law of deceased Vijay Pal and an alleged eye witness, who admitted that deceased Vijay Pal was a habitual criminal and he was involved in many cases. It is also stated that the trial Court has erred in law and hence summoned the petitioners. 2. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that petitioner Virender has not been named in the FIR and no role has been attributed to him. He is not even named in the statement of PW2 Rakesh, recorded by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that as the petitioners were found innocent during investigation, therefore, no ground for their summoning was made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the person could be summoned only if there was possibility of recording of judgment of conviction against him. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is correct and as per law. No illegality has been committed by the trial Court. Learned State counsel further contended that in the revision petition, the Court is not to reappreciate the evidence but only to see whether any illegality has been committed by the Court or the order is perverse and not as per facts and law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel and have gone through the record. 5. As regarding petitioner No. 1 Bhim, admittedly, he is named in the FIR. He is stated to be armed with iron rod and caused injuries to deceased Vijay Pal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel and have gone through the record. 5. As regarding petitioner No. 1 Bhim, admittedly, he is named in the FIR. He is stated to be armed with iron rod and caused injuries to deceased Vijay Pal. Rather, as per FIR, petitioner Bhim Singh alongwith co-accused Sanjay developed enmity against Vijay Pal (deceased). The motive is also against petitioner Bhim Singh. As per FIR, there were some other persons also alongwith the named accused who also caused injuries. Copy of statement (Annexure P-2) of PW1 Pardeep Kumar is also placed on record in which he specifically stated that accused Bhim (petitioner) was having iron rod and accused Virender (petitioner) was having 'danda'. This witness also stated that accused Bhim was causing injuries to his (PW1) brother-in-law Vijay Pal (deceased). This witness deposed that all the persons named by him were causing injuries to his brother-in-law Vijay Pal (deceased). PW2 Rakesh also deposed in his statement given before the Court that Sanjay and Bhim started causing injuries to Vijay Pal (deceased). This witness also deposed that accused Bhim, brother of accused Sanjay, gave iron rod blow on the legs of Vijay Pal (deceased). PW2 Rakesh deposed that so many injuries were caused to his brother Vijay Pal. This witness further deposed that Bhim alongwith Sanjay and 3-4 other persons was present in the car. PW2 Rakesh deposed that all the assailants except Bhim and Virender were present in the Court on that day. 6. Keeping in view the averments made in the FIR and also the statements of PW1 Pardeep and PW2 Rakesh, recorded in the Court, I find that from the evidence, it appears that both the petitioners have committed offence and they could be tried together with the other accused, who are facing trial. In the revision petition, the Court is to see whether any illegality has been committed by the Court while passing the impugned order. No illegality has been pointed out at the time of arguments. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the said order is as per law and the trial Court has not committed any illegality while passing the same. 7. No illegality has been pointed out at the time of arguments. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the said order is as per law and the trial Court has not committed any illegality while passing the same. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Cri) 504 Lal Suraj alias Suraj Singh and another v. State of Jharkhand wherein it is held that a person cannot be summoned to face the trial on the basis of strong suspicion and in the case in hand, there is no such suspicion, therefore, this citation having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also cited 2009 AIR SCW 4236 Sarabjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another and this citation also having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case as in this case the role has been specifically attributed to petitioner Bhim and injuries are also attributed to some other unknown persons who were accompanying the other accused. 9. Both the PWs, including the eye witness, while appearing in the Court, have named both the petitioners. These PWs have also deposed regarding injuries caused by the petitioners to deceased Vijay Pal with iron rod and 'danda'. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.