GULSHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a complainant PW who had lodged an FIR alleging that unlawful assembly constituted by 20 to 25 people had made an attempt to dispossess the petitioner from the land of the complainant-petitioner. The investigating agency on the basis of investigation conducted opted to challan only two persons. Petitioner appeared as a witness and reiterated the original version and named Makhan Ram, Hans Raj, Desh Raj, Karnail Singh, Nanko Bai and Sudesh Rani to be members of unlawful assembly who had come on four tractors, a maruti car and three motorcycles armed with weapons to assault and take possession of the land from the complainant. Makhan Ram is alleged to have given a dang blow on the left shoulder of the complainant. Hans Raj is alleged to have inflicted injuries with a pipe on the neck, right thigh and knee of the complainant. Desh Raj allegedly gave a fist blow on the face of the wife of the complainant. Karnail Singh allegedly gave a dang blow hitting on the left thigh and neck. Nanko Bai had allegedly gave a burn injury on the right hand and Sudesh Rani is attributed a dang blow on the person of daughter of the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the injuries attributed to the above said persons stand corroborated by the MLRs of Gursher Singh, Sandeep Singh, Rajinder Kaur and Kartaro Bai on the basis of lacerations, contusions and abrasions. Counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to satisfy this Court that prima facie a case is made out against Makhan Ram and others warranting their trial alongwith the other two accused.

(2.) I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, the FIR was registered in the year 2009. Cross-examination of Dilsher Singh indicates that a civil suit filed regarding the property in dispute has been decided in favour of Makhan Ram, and against the complainant. The possession of the complainant appears to be a debatable issue as is apparent from the cross-examination. Merely because the petitioner has opted to name the persons with an intention to get them impleaded as additional accused is not sufficient enough in the present case to warrant trial of Makhan Ram and others especially when during the course of investigation and on the basis of the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, prima facie involvement of the persons sought to be added as additional accused is not warranted. It is a settled principle of law that merely because an injured witness is over-zealous to implicate maximum number of persons from the opposite side by attributing role to each of the persons sought to be accused as additional accused is not sufficient enough to exercise powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Present case also appears to be one of the said cases.

(3.) In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.