SADHU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.9.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby an application under Section 319 Cr.PC filed by the prosecution for summoning respondents 2 to 6 as additional accused to face trial has been dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite specific allegations in the FIR against respondents 2 to 6, the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly dismissed the application under Section 319 Cr.PC.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, I find no illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court in the instant revision petition. While dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.PC, the learned Sessions Judges has found that eye witness account of two witnesses examined by the prosecution does not match the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report carried out on the dead body of the deceased. It was also noticed by the learned Sessions Judge that complainant Sadhu Ram had named Suman of having given a lathi blow on the right shoulder of complainant. However, no corresponding injury was found. It has further been noticed by the learned Sessions Judge, that Sadhu Ram while appearing as PW1 stated that only his brother and father could tell about the weapons the accusedrespondents used. I have read the statement of Sahdu Ram PW-1. As per said statement he was present at the time of occurrence when the accused opened assault on complainant party. In these circumstances the stand of the complainant-Sadhu Ram that his brother and father could tell about the weapons used raises reasonable doubt to reject the prayer of the prosecution to summon respondents 2 to 6 as additional accused. While holding so, I am further convinced by the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge that the injuries stated by PW1 Sadhu Ram and PW2 Rambir do not find mention in the post mortem report of the deceased.

(3.) For the reasons stated above, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, the present revision petition stands dismissed.