PRABHJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. lays challenge to order dated 25.09.2009 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused under section 319 IPC in a criminal trial pertaining to FIR No. 160 dated 31.08.2007 under Section 307/120-B IPC and Section 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that ASI Gurvinder Singh son of Sarup Singh lodged a complaint on the allegations that on 31.08.2007, at about 5.30 am, he was attacked by two young men riding a motor cycle and the person sitting on the pillion fired a shot from his revolver which hit on the left side of his head. The complainant also alleged that in the year 2003, his father Sarup Singh was murdered and in the said case Prabhjit, Sarpanch (petitioner herein) was one of the accused and was declared as a proclaimed offender. Prabhjit Singh, Surinder Singh alias Sunder and Gurmeet Singh alias Kala (already facing trial in the aforesaid FIR) have been threatening to kill him. The complainant further stated that he was sure that they are involved in the conspiracy of bloodiest attack on him. It is further argued that the police conducted thorough investigation of the case and the present petitioner was declared innocent in an inquiry conducted by Satpal Singh, DSP (City) and the report in regard to innocence of the petitioner was approved by the Senior Superintendent of Police and as a result, the petitioner was kept in column No. 2 of the report submitted under section 173 Cr.P.C. It has been argued with vehemence that the learned trial Court has failed to correctly appreciate the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the various judgments laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court with regard to scope of summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and as a result, in a casual and perfunctory manner passed the impugned order summoning the petitioner as an additional accused to stand trial with the accused originally challaned under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The last submission made by counsel is that even the statement of complainant Gurvinder Singh recorded during trial is conspicuously silent about the basis of his allegations that the present petitioner is a party to any conspiracy to kill him or the occurrence, in question, took place in pursuance of the said conspiracy.

(3.) Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the contrary, submits that keeping in view the allegations of the complainant in the first information report coupled with his deposition before the Court of Sessions, the application filed by the prosecution for summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been rightly allowed and the petitioner has filed the present petition in order to delay the trial and to escape his liability for his criminal conduct.