Pritam Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the order, dated 29.2.2012, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, whereby the application filed by the prosecution u/s 319, Cr.P.C., was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the petitionercomplainant, Pritam Singh, made a statement before the police on 22.7.2004, alleging that on 21.7.2004 at about 11.00 a.m., he went to his house and saw that Dalbara Singh and Tanki Chowkidar were installing a water tap in front of his house. Pritam Singh requested them to instal the said water tap at some distance from the door of his house. In the meantime, his brother Zora Singh, who was Deputy Superintendent of Police, also reached there and requested them to fill the pit. On 22.7.2004 at about 6.30 a.m., Dalbara Singh, Nirmal Singh, Kaka Singh, Hakam Singh, Hari Singh, Visakha Singh and Binder Kaur were standing there when the petitioner, Pritam Singh, came back from Gurudwara and asked them to stop the digging of the pit. The accused brought sticks and gandasi and opened attack on Pritam Singh. In the meantime, Zora Singh came there empty handed and thereafter Kaka Singh inflicted a ''gandasi'' blow on the head of Pritam Singh; Dalbara Singh, gave ''daang'' blow on his arm; Hari Singh gave ''daang'' blow to him; Visakha Singh picked up the brick-bat; Binder Kaur was holding ''kahi'' and Nirmal Singh started pelting brick-bats. Many people gathered at the spot. The injured was brought to Civil Hospital, Sidhwan Bet, and was medico legally examined.

After thorough investigation, the police submitted the report u/s 173, Cr.P.C., for the prosecution of six persons.

The charges were framed and after examination of few witnesses, an application u/s 319, Cr.P.C., was moved for summoning of Binder Kaur @ Gurbinder Kaur, elder daughter of Hari Singh, on the ground that name of Baljit Kaur daughter of Hari Singh, sister of Binder Kaur @ Gurbinder Kaur, was wrongly added in the first information report. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 3.7.2007, but the same was set aside by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2007, on the ground that cross-examination of the eye-witnesses was not completed. After recording of statements of more witnesses and the cross-examination of already examined witnesses, an application u/s 319, Cr.P.C., was again moved for summoning of Binder Kaur alias Gurbinder Kaur, daughter of Hari Singh, to face trial along with the principal accused for having committed the offence punishable u/s 325, IPC, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 29.2.2012, which gave rise to the present revision petition.

Learned counsel contends that the learned Trial Court has wrongly declined the request for summoning of Binder Kaur @ Gurbinder Kaur, respondent No. 3. He further submits that in the substantive evidence, the prosecution witnesses have specifically named respondent No. 3 as one of the participants in the alleged occurrence, therefore, there is ample material on record, connecting respondent No.3 with the alleged crime, hence, learned Trial Court should have ordered for the summoning of Binder Kaur @ Gurbinder Kaur as an additional accused.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the material available on record.

The alleged occurrence had taken place on 22.7.2004. After investigation, the investigating agency filed the report u/s 173, Cr.P.C., for the prosecution of six persons. After examination-in-chief of certain witnesses, an application u/s 319, Cr.P.C, was presented for summoning of respondent No. 3, Binder Kaur @ Gurbinder Kaur, and the same was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 3.7.2007. However, the said order was set aside by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2007. After leading more evidence and completion of the crossexamination of earlier examined witnesses, another application was moved once again in terms of Section 319, Cr.P.C., for the summoning of said Binder Kaur @ Gurbinder Kaur. That application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 29.2.2012. There are serious contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the involvement of Binder Kaur@ Gurbinder Kaur in the alleged occurrence. The statement of the petitioner was recorded by the police in which he mentioned that Binder Kaur, daugher of Hari Singh, was armed with ''Kahi'' and in his supplementary statement he (Pritam Singh) clarified that he was perplexed on the date of incident, therefore, he got recorded the name of the daughter of Hari Singh as Binder Kaur, but her correct name was Binder Kaur @ Baljeet Kaur. PW Jora Singh stated to the police on 30.7.2004 that elder daughter of Hari Singh was Binder Kaur @ Gurwinder Kaur. When Jora Singh appeared as a witness, he deposed that elder daughter of Hari Singh was Sinder Kaur @ Gurminder Kaur. For the first time, it came during deposition of the prosecution witnesses that Binder Kaur was known as Gurbinder Kaur. It is apposite to mention here that Baljeet Kaur @ Binder Kaur has already been arrayed as an accused in this case. At this stage of the trial, the prayer of the prosecution that Binder Kaur @ Gurbinder Kaur be summoned to face the trial, cannot be accepted. It is also pertinent to mention that the accused side of the present case has also filed criminal complaint, titled as ''Hari Singh v. Gurdev Singh'', wherein Baljeet Kaur @ Binder Kaur, daughter of Hari Singh, has appeared as a witness. The learned Trial Court has recorded cogent and convincing reasons for declining the request of the prosecution to summon respondent No. 3 as an additional accused to face the trial with the principal accused. Resultantly, the present petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.