SATBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Karnal, vide which he dismissed the application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as "the Code")by Satbir Singh-complainant, for summoning Vidya Rattan, Pardip Kumar and Kamla as an additional accused to stand their trial with other accused for the offences under Sections 302/304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") in respect of which FIR No. 240 dated 22.10.2009 was registered under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC in Police Station Indri, District Karnal.

(2.) The brief facts are that, on 22.10.2008, complainant, father of the Manju-deceased, made a statement before the Officer Incharge, Police Station, Indri, that he had married the deceased to Kuldeep, son of Vidya Rattan on 16.2.2008 and at that time he had given sufficient dowry beyond his capacity. After about two months, Kuldeep made a demand of Maruti car on telephone and he told him that he was not having the capacity of giving such a car. On 16.10.2008, that accused accompanied by the deceased came to his village on the eve of Karva Chauth and he again pressed for his demand of car and thereafter he was told by the deceased that Kuldeep had been harassing her for bringing a car from her parents. On 22.10.2008, at about 4.15 p.m., he was told by Vidya Rattan that the deceased was seriously ill and was admitted in the hospital. He accompanied by his wife, Bimla and son Sumit and others went to the village of the accused and came to know that the deceased had been murdered by Kuldeep, his parents, Vidya Rattan, Kamla and younger brother Pradip by giving blows with the help of axe on head and neck under the greed of dowry. On the basis of that statement, FIR was recorded under Sections 304-B and 120-B IPC. During the post mortem examination, injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased and it was opined by the doctor that cause of death was hemorrhage and shock resulting from those injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. After investigation, the offence under Section 302 IPC was also added against the accused. Vidya Rattan, Kamla and Pardip Kumar were not challaned by the police and the report under Section 173 of the Code was filed only against Kuldeep. During trial, statements of Satbir Singh complainant, PW-1 and Sumit, PW-2, were recorded and thereafter the aforesaid application was moved by that complainant which was dismissed vide the aforesaid order dated 11.11.2009, on the ground that the complainant has tried to implicate the accused by stating that they killed his daughter in furtherance of their common intention under the greed of money and that there was not a single allegation of demand of dowry, what to say of specific allegation, against these three persons, whom the complainant wanted to be summoned as an additional accused and that there was no reasonable prospects of recording of the conviction on the evidence produced during the trial.

(3.) Notice of the revision was given to the respondents, who came present through their counsel and contested the same. I have heard learned counsel for the both the sides. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner while appearing in the trial court as PW-1, specifically stated that Vidya Rattan, Kamla and Pradip Kumar had been raising demand of the car and they along with Kuldeep murdered the deceased by giving axe blows on her head and neck. That statement of the complainant has been corroborated by Sumit PW-2. From that evidence, it appears that all these three accused also committed the offence under Section 302 IPC and in the alternative under Section 304-B IPC. They are, therefore, liable to be summoned as an additional accused to be tried along with Kuldeep accused.