Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1187 (HP)

Kamal Singh v. State of H. P.

2017-10-23

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant petition is directed against the order recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. of 2.7.2016, upon an application preferred before him under Section 319 Cr.P.C., whereby, the State sought the arraying, of, in the array of co-accused, the names of Satish Kumari, Sudesh Kumari and Kamal Singh. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that with non occurrence of the names of the aforesaid, in the statement made by the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C., hence renders her testification, wherein, she ascribes an inculpatory role in the alleged offences vis-à-vis the petitioners herein, to be infirm, whereafter he proceeds to argue qua, thereupon the order impugned here at being interfereable. However, the aforesaid contention lacks vigor, for the reasons: (a) A perusal of the record of the Investigating Officer, placed before this Court, by the learned Additional Advocate General, unfolding, the factum of the husband of the complainant, who is narrated in the statement made under Section 154 Cr.P.C., to eye witness the occurrence, proceeding to in prompt sequel vis-a-vis the eruption of the incident, make a telephonic communication to the Superintendent of Police concerned, for taking action against the petitioners herein, given their involvement in the relevant incident. (b) Even if the complainant has not proceeded to name the petitioners in the FIR, yet effect thereof is effaced by the aforesaid factum also is benumbed, by, the factum of her testification, occurring in her examination-in-chief, wherein, she unveils the names of the petitioners, not, being concerted to be shred of its efficacy, by, the learned defence counsel comprised in the latter confronting her with her previously rendered statement in writing, whereupon the apt sequel is (c) of the defence conceding to the factum of the aforesaid disclosure being omitted to be scribed by the Investigating Officer and (d) of the previous statement recorded in writing of the complaint, being a sequel, of, the Investigating Officer in scribing it, his not intentionally including the name of the petitioners also his thereafter without reading its contents to the complainant, his obtaining her signatures thereon. 3. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. Impugned order stands maintained and affirmed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. 4. 3. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. Impugned order stands maintained and affirmed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. 4. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.