Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.
Misc.
No.M-1650 of 2014 Date of decision : January 17, 2014 Amarjit @ Amarjit Singh ..Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
SURINDER GUPTA, J Assailed in this petition is the order dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure P/4) whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra allowed the application of the prosecution filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.for summoning the witnesses.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and now the prosecution wants to fill up the lacuna by summoning the additional witnesses.
The case was registered on the complaint of Mehindro and her husband Labh Singh.
Their daughter Charanjit Kaur was married with Gopal son of Ishwar Singh resident of village Berthala.
As per prosecution case, she eloped with the petitioner who was Sarpanch of the village.
Later on she accompanied her husband to village Berthala.
On 3.5.2012, the complainant received the information on telephone that Charanjit Kaur had died in Shahbad hospital.
He got recorded his statement to the police levelling allegations against his son-in-law Gopal, his grand mother, uncle's son and one Salinder elder brother's son of Gopal.
During investigation, this fact came to notice of the police that on 3.5.2011 Charanjit Kaur accompanied the petitioner on his motor cycle, purchased tablets of 'Sulfas' and on his asking consumed five tablets.
The prosecution moved an application for summoning Gopal husband of the deceased, Ratti Ram, Ram Kumar and Surinder Singh Deepak Kumar witnesses to prove that Gopal had moved an application to the police on 2014.01.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which has been signed by the Hon'ble Bench High Court, Chandigarh Crl.
Misc.
No.M-1650 of 2014 -2- 2.5.2012 to the effect that he and the remaining witnesses have seen Charanjit Kaur in the company of the Amarjit Singh.
The trial court while allowing the application has observed as follows :- “In the present case names of Gopal son of Ishwar Singh, Rati Ram son of Ram Parshad, Ram Kumar son of Kali Ram and Surinder Singh son of Ishwar Singh, sought to be examined by the prosecution are mentioned in police diary but the Investigating Officer did not cite their names in the list of witnesses.
In Khushwinder Singh and other versus State of Punjab 2007 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 531 (P&H).it has been held that trial court should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities and trial must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
It has been further held that where the evidence of any person appears to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is obligatory on the court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any person or witness.
In the present case, the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses appears to be essential for just decision of the case and so the application in hand is allowed.
Accordingly, Gopal son of Ishwar Singh, Rati Ram son of Ram Parshad, Ram Kumar son of Kali Ram and Surinder Singh son of Ishwar Singh be summoned for 19.12.2013.”
.
The case is still at trial stage.
This fact has not been contested that the court is competent to recall or re-examine any witness if his evidence appears to it to be essential for just decision of the case.
Even the application by the prosecution is not required to summon any material witness.
The order of the trial court will not prejudice the defence of the accused in any manner as the petitioner shall have the opportunity to cross examine these witnesses and shake their testimony.
The order passed by the trial court suffers from no legal infirmity calling for interference by this Court.
Deepak Kumar 2014.01.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which has been signed by the Hon'ble Bench High Court, Chandigarh Crl.
Misc.
No.M-1650 of 2014 -3- There is no merits in this petition.
Dismissed in limine.
January 17, 2014 (Surinder Gupta) deepak Judge Deepak Kumar 2014.01.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which has been signed by the Hon'ble Bench High Court, Chandigarh