Judgment:
Crl.
Revision No.1789 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl.
Revision No.1789 of 2014 Date of decision: 30.06.2014 Dhara Chaprana .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble MRS.Justice Rekha Mittal -.- Present: Mr.A.P.S.Doel, Senior Advocate with Mr.Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 1.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.
To be referred to the Reporter or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Rekha Mittal, J.
The present petition lays challenge to order dated 20.02.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby the application filed by the prosecution for summoning Rajesh Nagar, respondent No.2 as additional accused to face trial alongwith Jony alias Dharambir and others for offence punishable under Sections 307, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms Act has been dismissed by the learned trial Court.
The brief backdrop of this case is that an intimation was received in Police Station Tigaon, District Faridabad regarding firing during Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.07.04 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Revision No.1789 of 2014 2 election of President of Youth Congress on 01.10.2012.
Ruqa, Ex.
PB, was sent by Inspector Inder Singh for registration of the case in regard to receipt of fire arm injuries by Dhara Chaprana (petitioner herein) at the behest of Parveen Chandila and his associates during election in which Parveen Chandila was a candidate.
Dhara Chaprana sustained bullet injuries in his abdomen as well as left hip joint.
The injured victim made a statement before the investigating officer on 05.11.2012 while he was lying admitted in Metro Hospital, Faridabad.
During investigation, one empty cartridge and one live cartridge of .32 bore pistol were recovered from the spot and taken into police possession.
On completion of investigation, the police presented challan against four persons Jony alias Dharambir and otheRs.The accused challaned by the police were charge sheeted by the trial Court and thereafter during the couRs.of trial, a number of witnesses were examined including the petitioner (PW9).the injured victim in the case.
The prosecution filed an application for summoning Rajesh Nagar, respondent No.2 and Parveen Chandila as additional accused which was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.02.2014.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the evidence against the person sought to be summoned as additional accused must be sufficient to record his conviction and evidence on record is not found to be so sufficient to warrant conviction of Rajesh Nagar, therefore, he cannot be summoned as additional accused in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr.P.C'.).In view of the latest judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh versus Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.07.04 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Revision No.1789 of 2014 3 State of Punjab and others 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 623, counsel would further submit that the test to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction to an extent that evidence, if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction'.
It is further argued that the complainant and the injured victim have corroborated each other in regard to presence of Rajesh Nagar on the spot, who was infact driver of Scorpio in which the assailants to whom overt role has been attributed arrived at the scene of crime laced with fire arm weapons and inflicted fire arm injuries to the petitioner with an intention to kill him, at the instance of Parveen Chandila, a candidate in the election of President of Youth Congress.
He has prayed that the order passed by the trial Court may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the said Court for consideration afresh in the light of enunciation of law laid down in Hardeep Singh's case (supra).I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
Indisputably, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh's case (supra) to answer question No.4, 'what is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.to arraign an accused?.
Whether the power under Section 319 (1) Cr.P.C can be exercised only if the Court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted?.' held that 'the test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
In the absence of such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.' Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.07.04 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Revision No.1789 of 2014 4 Now the question arises, if in view of evidence on record the trial Court has committed any error much less illegality in rejecting the prayer of the prosecution for summoning respondent No.2 as an additional accused.
It is pertinent to mention that though the trial Court in para 9 of the impugned order has made a mention that while summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C, it has to be seen whether evidence against the person sought to be summoned as additional accused is sufficient to record his conviction, but in the concluding para 11, it has been held that there is no material on file to establish their (persons sought to be summoned as additional accused) involvement and warrant to summon them to face trial with other accused persons.
A perusal of material, i.e., evidence recorded during trial particularly the statement of injured victim Dhara Chaprana shows that the same appears to be reiteration of the facts stated by the witness in his fiRs.statement recorded by the police on 05.11.2012, more than one month after the occurrence.
Counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to concede that there is no evidence on record that respondent No.2 is the registered owner of Scorpio Car, complete registration particulars whereof have not been found during investigation, in which the assailants were allegedly driven to the place of occurrence.
Admittedly, no overt role has been attributed to respondent No.2 in causing injuries to the victim.
However, Dhara Chaprana deposed that Rajesh Nagar proclaimed that there was direction of Shri Avtar Singh Bhadana, M.P.for killing him.
Keeping in view the evidence on record, I find myself unable to Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.07.04 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Revision No.1789 of 2014 5 be persuaded with the submissions made by learned counsel that there is enough material on record which makes more than a prima facie case, warranting summoning of Rajesh Nagar as an additional accused.
In this view of the matter, I do not find any error much less illegality in the impugned order as would call for intervention in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
(Rekha Mittal) Judge 30.06.2014 mohan Bimbra Mohan Lal 2014.07.04 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh