TIRLOK CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned the order passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, Palwal declining the prayer of the prosecution to summon Munshi, Hari Shankar, Naresh, Bharat and Satdev as additional accused to face prosecution for an offence under Section 302 IPC and other sections.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the evidence of three injured eye-witnesses. This FIR was registered on the complaint of Trilok Chand. The altercation between the parties took place during the time of election. The accused party had a grudge against the complainant. It is alleged that on 30.9.2010, the complainant along with his son Ashok and nephews Vijay and Anuj were standing in front of their house, when Ashok and Anuj went inside the house. Vijay proceeded towards his tubewell. Around 9:00 PM, the complainant heard the noise of a scuffle. Ashok and Anuj also came out of the house and saw Bhagwant son of Munshi armed with an axe, Uharat son of Munshi, Naresh son of Thukur, Satdev son of Munshi, Gopal son of Paras Ram, Thakur son of Narain, Umesh son of Hari, Mukesh son of Hari, Mool Chand son of Sam Dutt and Hari son of Gurdayal all armed with sticks present there. As per the allegations, Hari and Thakur raised a lalkara that Vijay be taught a lesson, on which all the accused persons attacked Vijay. Bharat and Naresh attacked Vijay with sticks. Bhagwat gave an axe blow on the head of Vijay, upon which Vijay fell down on the ground. It is then alleged that all other accused caused injuries to Vijay with sticks. Ashok and Anuj tried to rescue Vijay when Umesh gave a stick blow on the right temple. It is stated that Ashok and Anuj would explain the injuries inflicted upon them. The complainant raised an alarm which attracted the villagers to the spot. Vijay was taken to hospital where he was declared brought dead.

(3.) Though all the persons referred above were named in the FIR, but out of them only five, i.e., Bhagwat, Mukesh, Gopal, Thakur Lal and Mool Chand, were challaned. On the basis of evidence, as referred to above, application was moved for summoning Munshi, Hari Shankar, Naresh, Bharat and Satdev. This Court after considering the evidence dismissed the petition qua respondent Nos.2 and 3, i.e., Munshi and Hari Shankar. Notice, however, was issued for Naresh, Bharat and Satdev. As per the evidence, Bharat and Naresh are clearly attributed attack with the sticks. Satdev is not attributed any injury to the deceased. However, as per the counsel for the petitioner, Satdev had given an injury to the injured/eyewitness. I have considered the submissions made before me.