DHANPATI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - Petitioners are wives of Sangat Ram who is facing trial in a case of assault before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar. The FIR was registered at the instance of Ram Gopal alleging that the petitioners had also participated in the occurrence in which Sangat Ram and others had assaulted the complainant with lathis and bricks. The petitioners were found innocent and were not challaned during the course of trial. The prosecution agency moved an application under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C., on the basis of statement of complainant PW.1 Ram Gopal who stated that his nephew Chanderbhan was seen beaten by Sangat Ram and Mangat Ram and that when the complainant tried to rescue his nephew, Mangat Ram gave gandasi blow on his head and he became unconscious. When he gained conscious, he saw the petitioners who are the wives of Sangat Ram giving beatings with lathis to him and he was rescued by his nephew Sube Singh and son Rohtash. The complainant was examined four years after the occurrence and on the basis of his statement, the prosecution agency sought impleadment of the petitioner. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar, vide order dated 27.4.2013, dismissed the application under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. refusing to summon the petitioners as additional accused. The said order was challenged by the complainant Ram Gopal by filing a criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, adopting the casual approach and without appreciating the stage of the trial held the order passed by the Magistrate as improper and directed the trial Court to pass a fresh order. The validity of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction dated 13.5.2014, has been challenged before this Court. Since the order passed by the Magistrate has been set aside by revisional Court, this Court has got no option except to again go through the statement of PW.1. A perusal of the statement of PW.1 Ram Gopal indicates that the specific role has been attributed to Mangat Ram and Sangat Ram father and son. The petitioners are wies of Sangat Ram who were seen giving injuries to Ram Gopal when he gained conscious. It is not out of place to observe here that cross-examination of Ram Gopal indicates that it is a case of cross- version wherein defence plea is that Ram Gopal and Chanderbhan had inflicted injuries on the persons of Mangat Ram and Sangat Ram but with the help of Ram Chander a retired police official, a case has been registered against Sangat Ram and others. Both the petitioners are ladies. No specific injury has been attributed to them. They were found innocent. It has been informed, at this stage, that all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the operation of the order of revisional Court has been stayed on 30.5.2014.

(2.) After hearing the counsel for the petitioners and going through the order passed by the revisional Court, I find that no reasoning has been given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, while setting aside the well reasoned order of the learned trial Court. It appears to be a case where the complainant is overzealous to implicate the entire family members of Sangat Ram. No importance has been given by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, to the investigation conducted by the Investigating Agency to find the petitioners-ladies as innocent. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar dated 13.5.2014, is hereby set aside as the same has been passed without keeping in mind the parameters laid down in various judgments passed by this Court as well as Honourable the Apex Court including the judgment in case Micheal Machado & anr. Vs. CBI & anr., 2000 (2) RCR (Crl.) 75.

(3.) The present petition is allowed accordingly.