DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition challenge is to order dated 20.4.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by court of Sessions Judge, Mansa whereby an application filed by the Public Prosecutor for summoning additional accused has been allowed.

(2.) Brief factual background of the case is that Amarjit Kaur, wife of Pritam Singh, was allegedly killed by Lakhwinder Singh and his wife Balwinder Kaur on 6.6.2009. A complaint was lodged by Pritam Singh stating that he was earlier married to Som Kaur who died in the year 1997. In the year 1999 he married Amarjit Kaur (now deceased). He gave two killas of land to his son and kept one for himself. He and his wife were living in their house at village Alampur Bodra where his son Lakhwinder Singh alongwith his wife and children was also living. Due to domestic problems complainant and his wife decided to shift to Suman. On 6.6.2009 at about 9.00 A.M. they reached Village Alampur Bodra for taking away their domestic articles. When they opened their room, Lakhwinder Singh was talking on his mobile phone with his maternal uncle Darshan Singh who provoked him saying that both of them should not be spared today. This conversation was heard by deceased Amarjit Kaur. Thereafter, Lakhwinder Singh caught hold of Amarjit Kaur from hair and threw her on the floor. He thereafter gave two blows on the right side of her head with thapa while his wife sat on legs of Amarjit Kaur. Thereafter Lakhwinder Singh strangulated Amarjit Kaur with her chunni. After the incident they fled from spot. Amarjit Kaur, however, died. Motive of the crime is stated to be that Lakhwinder Singh and his wife as well as brother-in-law Darshan Singh were not happy with second marriage of Pritam Singh. According to allegations in the FIR, they murdered the wife of complainant on the instigation of Darshan Singh. After FIR was lodged investigation ensued. However, investigating agency found Darshan Singh and Balwinder Kaur innocent and exonerated them in its final report under section 173 Criminal Procedure Code. It only presented a charge-sheet against Lakhwinder Singh. During the course of trial, Pritam Singh, however, stepped into witness box and reiterated his version. The Public Prosecutor thus moved an application under section 319 Code Criminal Procedure for summoning additional accused, namely, Darshan Singh and Balwinder Kaur vide impugned order-Annexure P/2. The trial court allowed the prayer and summoned both the accused in exercise of power under section 319 Criminal Procedure Code. The present petition has, however, been preferred only by Darshan Singh.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Pritam Singh has stated nothing new after stepping into witness box. He has merely reiterated his version as given in the FIR. According to him, on the basis of said version a thorough investigation was conducted and Darshan Singh was found innocent. Thus no new evidence has come before the court which would warrant summoning of Darshan Singh. This apart, he submits that according to allegations in the FIR, Amarjit Kaur (deceased) heard Lakhwinder Singh talking to Darshan Singh on mobile phone when he was at Rajpura. According to him, there was no method by which Amarjit Kaur could have heard what Darshan Singh had said over phone. This version is merely a hearsay evidence. He has also emphasised that an inquiry was conducted into the matter wherein mobile call record was examined and it was found that there was no call at the relevant time between Darshan Singh and Lakhwinder Singh. The said inquiry report has been placed on record as Annexure P-4.