BARU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 4.7.2012, passed by Additional Sessions, Judge, vide which the application filed by the petitioner-complainant Baru Ram, under section 319 Cr. P. C for summoning Kuldeep, son of Surta, owner of Himanshi Textiles, Vikas Nagar, Panipat was dismissed on the ground that the application was moved at the fag end of the trial. The Investigating Agency did not collect any evidence showing involvement of summoning witness-Kuldeep at the time of filing the police report under section 173 Cr. P. C.

(2.) As per the FIR, deceased Dharamjit @ Kala was working at Himanshi Textiles Factory and on 6.8.2010, the owner of the said factory, Kuldeep called his son to factory. Dharamjit was found murdered in the factory premises of Himanshi Textiles. This fact is further found corroboration in the statement of Baru Ram, father of deceased Dharamjit, while examined as PW7. One Satbir Singh, alleged eye witness to the occurrence has sworn an affidavit on 7.1.2011 that he was present in the vicinity of Himanshi Textiles and he had seen the accused alongwith the summoned witness, Kuldeep giving injuries to the deceased. There is a reference in the statement of co-accused recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C that he detained the deceased and handed over to the summoned witness, Kuldeep, who caused injuries to him as a result of which Dharamjit had died.

(3.) The complainant-Baru Ram, from day one, has been asserting that the summoned witness-Kuldeep is involved in the crime. He has stated so in the FIR as well as in his statement recorded as PW7. The Investigating Agency has not associated Satbir Singh, an alleged witness to the occurrence, during investigation.