SUKHPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved against the order passed by Sessions Judge, Sirsa declining to summon Reshma and Lal Chand as an additional accused, the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court.

(2.) At the out set, State counsel has pointed out before me that three accused in this case who are challaned and prosecuted have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years coupled with some fine. It is now to be considered if Reshma and Lal Chand are required to be added as an additional accused on the basis of material and evidence available on record against them.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has highlighted that both Reshma and Lal Chand were specifically named in the FIR and the complainant while appearing to give evidence before the Court has named them as well. The perusal of the impugned order would show that this aspect is well considered by the trial Court while dealing with the prayer of the petitioner to summon these two persons as an additional accused under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. Trial Court has noticed that deceased lady Santosh had performed marriage with Karta. This marriage was out of caste marriage and was performed as they both were in love affair.