Gurmit Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioners u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (Cr.P.C. for short), challenging the order dated 18.8.2011 passed by the trial Court, whereby the application moved by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners as additional accused was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the petition, petitioner No. 1 has died. Thus, this petition qua petitioner No. 1 is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

Learned counsel, on behalf of petitioners No. 2 and 3, has submitted that the said petitioners were residing separately. In fact, the husband of the deceased had been disinherited by his parents. Thus, there was no occasion for the petitioners to have instigated the husband of the deceased to beat her or torture her which forced her to commit suicide. Learned counsel has further submitted that Love Pal, husband of the deceased, who had faced trial, has since been acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 21.2.2013.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

Love Pal was married to Palwinder Kaur in the year 1999. They were blessed with two children out of the said wedlock. Palwinder Kaur committed suicide by consuming poison on 27.7.2010. FIR in question was registered at the instance of Sukhjinder Singh, brother of deceased Palwinder Kaur. As per the complainant, his sister had been harassed by her husband at the instance of his parents and other family members. During investigation, petitioners were found innocent. Challan was presented against Love Pal, husband of the deceased. During trial, prosecution moved an application for summoning the petitioners as additional accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C. Vide the impugned order dated 18.8.2011, the said application was allowed.

Section 319 Cr.P.C. reads as under:--

Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence:- 1) where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

2) Where such person is not attending the Court he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then

a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard.

b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.

Thus, as per the above provision, Court has ample power to summon any person as an additional accused if it appears during trial that such person appears to have committed the offence.

The trial Court has to carefully examine the role of the additional accused before ordering their summoning to face the trial, on an application moved by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. A perusal of the statement of PW-1 Sukhjinder Singh reveals that in his cross-examination, he had deposed that father of accused Love Pal had disclosed after marriage of his sister that he had disinherited his son and would not give them anything from his property. He also admitted in his cross-examination that there were separate portions on the first floor of the house. His sister along with her husband Love Pal and children were residing in the portion on the right side of the first floor. Jaspal Singh and his wife and children were residing on the left side of the portion on the first floor. PW-1 also admitted that Love Pal had gone to Dubai for some time and had been sending money to his wife for her maintenance. At the time of death of his sister Palwinder Kaur, she was having about Rs. 51,000/- in her bank account.

Although PW-1 Sukhjinder Singh, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that his brother-in-law Love Pal was liquor/drug addict and used to beat his sister at the instigation of his mother Mohinder Kaur, father Gurmeet Singh and brother Jaspal Singh but a combined reading of his examination-in-chief as well as his cross-examination leads to the inference that the petitioners had no reason to instigate Love Pal to beat his wife. Gurmeet Singh, father of Love Pal, had disinherited him from his property. Love Pal had gone to Dubai and had been sending money to his wife. Apparently, due to this reason, petitioners were found innocent during investigation. Further now Love Pal has also been acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 21.2.2013. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, trial Court fell in error in allowing the application moved by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners to face the trial as additional accused as there was no material available on record against them which could lead to the inference that they were also liable to face the trial along with accused Love Pal. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.8.2011, qua petitioners No. 2 and 3, is set aside.