ASSA SINGH Vs. HARNEK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order dated 21st July, 1981, of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Samrala, whereby he had summoned the petitioner as accused to stand trial under Sections 323, 353, 384 and 506, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It has been averred in the petition and has been argued by Mr. Sarjit Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, before me that the evidence examined by the prosecution in support of its allegations is self contradictory and is of a type on which no reliance can be placed. The learned Magistrate could not issue process on the basis of this evidence. Mr. Sarjit Singh has taken me through the statements of the three witnesses examined by the complainant and referred to certain discrepencies therein. These discrepencies have been reproduced in detail in the grounds of revision and it is not necessary to recapitulate them in this judgment. I have carefully gone through these discrepancies. They are not of such a nature on the basis of which one may say that the witnesses contradict each other.

(3.) A reading of complaint and the evidence of the witnesses reveal that there is sufficient material on the file to proceed against the accused. It is not necessary at this stage that the evidence should be such which may be sufficient to warrant a conviction. If from the allegation and evidence a strong suspicion of the commission of offence by the accused is spelt out, the accused can be proceeded against. This has been so held in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, 1977 4 SCC 39.