SANTOKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been filed against order dated 9.4.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondents No. 2 to 5 as additional accused has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as given in the petition are that FIR No. 183 dated 6.8.2007 under Sections 302/148/149 IPC was registered against accused Buta Singh, Gurbachan Kaur, Mehal Singh, Baaj Singh, Mohinder Singh and Surjit Kaur on the basis of statement made by complainant Santokh Singh. During investigation, accused Mehal Singh, Baaj Singh, Mohinder Singh and Surjit Kaur were found innocent by the police and they were placed in Column No. 2 of the challan. During investigation, the police recorded the statement of Jawala Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Jawala Singh while appearing as PW-1 in the Court, he named Mehal Singh, Baaj Singh, Mohinder Singh and Surjit Kaur as accused for commission of offence. An application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution for summoning of respondents No. 2 to 5 as additional accused on the basis of statement made by Jawala Singh PW-1. The application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 9.4.2009 which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has completely ignored the evidence of Jawala Singh PW-1 who has specifically named the above-said accused and there was sufficient evidence to summon them. Jawala Singh PW-1 has clearly stated in his statement that he saw all the accused through the whole of the gate inside the house of Mehal Singh and these accused were armed with deadly weapons and were causing injuries to Kulwinder Singh alias Kinder. As per statement of Jawala Singh PW-1, all the accused actively participated in the incident and they tried to kill the complainant/petitioner by attacking through their deadly weapons and also raised lalkara not so spare the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh v. Staste of U.P. and Anr., 2007 3 RCR(Cri) 1022 in support of his contention.