Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRL.
REVISION No.1926 OF 2014 DATE OF DECISION : 2ND JULY, 2014 Karambir ….
Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ….
Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA **** Present : Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** SURINDER GUPTA, J.
(ORAL) This revision petition challenges order dated 07.06.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the application of the petitioner to summon Dharmender S/o Mahabir Singh, Vikas @ Vicky @ Lara s/o Mahender Singh Chauhan was partly allowed.
Dharmender was ordered to be summoned to face the trial with other Co.accused while application qua respondent no.2-Vikas @ Vicky @ Lara was dismissed.
The FIR in this case was registered on 30.06.2013 on the statement of the petitioner who was the eye witness of the occurrence.
In the FIR he named 4 persons namely Arun S/o Madan Singh, Basia, Dharmender S/o Mahabir Singh and Sonu @ Bhukha S/o Rajender.
The entire role in the occurrence attributed to them.
As per the allegation in the FIR, accused-Arun fired a shot which hit the head of the brother of complainant and proved fatal.
CRR No.1926 OF2014-2- The complainant got recorded his supplementary statement on 25.07.2013 wherein he named some more persons including respondent no.2.
The role attributed to respondent no.2 is in the supplementary statement was that he caught Ravinder (deceased) when he was shot dead by Arun.
The police presented challan but the name of Dharmender and respondent no.2 were kept in column no.2.
After framing of charge statement of complainant/petitioner was recorded by the Court, wherein he has mentioned the presence of respondent no.2 at the spot with the averment that he surrounded the deceased before he (deceased) was shot dead by Arun.
The trial Court did not find any substance in the application filed by the petitioner to summon respondent no.2 as additional accused while allowing the application qua other accused-Dharmender.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.2 was not named in the FIR but he has been named in the supplementary statement and specific role was attributed to him.
At this stage the Court has only to see a prima facie case against respondent no.2.
After going through the paper book with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by him, I find no illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial Court dated 07.06.2014.
It is nowhere the case of the petitioner that respondent no.2 was not known to him or he could not identify him at the spot.
The role attributed to respondent no.2 in the supplementary statement and statement made in Court also diffeRs.The trial Court has not CRR No.1926 OF2014-3- found sufficient evidence on file so as to summon respondent no.2 as additional accused.
The mere naming of a person as accused in supplementary statement, recorded after about a month of occurrence, is not sufficient to summon him to face trial with other accused.
The statement on the basis of which FIR was got registered is an eye witness account of the occurrence, very explicit, clear and unambiguous.
The trial Court has committed no error of law or fact, calling for interference with the order.
For reasons as discussed above the instant petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
2nd July, 2014 (SURINDER GUPTA) GUPTA) ‘raj’ JUDGE Raj Kumar 2014.07.04 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh