DHARA CHAPRANA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition lays challenge to order dated 20.02.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby the application filed by the prosecution for summoning Rajesh Nagar, respondent No. 2 as additional accused to face trial alongwith Jony alias Dharambir and others for offence punishable under Sections 307, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms Act has been dismissed by the learned trial Court.

(2.) The brief backdrop of this case is that an intimation was received in Police Station Tigaon, District Faridabad regarding firing during election of President of Youth Congress on 01.10.2012. Ruqa, Ex. PB, was sent by Inspector Inder Singh for registration of the case in regard to receipt of fire arm injuries by Dhara Chaprana (petitioner herein) at the behest of Parveen Chandila and his associates during election in which Parveen Chandila was a candidate. Dhara Chaprana sustained bullet injuries in his abdomen as well as left hip joint. The injured victim made a statement before the investigating officer on 05.11.2012 while he was lying admitted in Metro Hospital, Faridabad. During investigation, one empty cartridge and one live cartridge of .32 bore pistol were recovered from the spot and taken into police possession. On completion of investigation, the police presented challan against four persons Jony alias Dharambir and others. The accused challaned by the police were charge sheeted by the trial Court and thereafter during the course of trial, a number of witnesses were examined including the petitioner (PW9), the injured victim in the case.

(3.) The prosecution filed an application for summoning Rajesh Nagar, respondent No. 2 and Parveen Chandila as additional accused which was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.02.2014. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the evidence against the person sought to be summoned as additional accused must be sufficient to record his conviction and evidence on record is not found to be so sufficient to warrant conviction of Rajesh Nagar, therefore, he cannot be summoned as additional accused in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr.P.C'.). In view of the latest judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 1 RCR(Cri) 623, counsel would further submit that the test to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction to an extent that evidence, if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction'. It is further argued that the complainant and the injured victim have corroborated each other in regard to presence of Rajesh Nagar on the spot, who was infact driver of Scorpio in which the assailants to whom overt role has been attributed arrived at the scene of crime laced with fire arm weapons and inflicted fire arm injuries to the petitioner with an intention to kill him, at the instance of Parveen Chandila, a candidate in the election of President of Youth Congress. He has prayed that the order passed by the trial Court may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the said Court for consideration afresh in the light of enunciation of law laid down in Hardeep Singh's case .