PARMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this criminal revision petition is to the order dated 3.6.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C., filed by the prosecution for summoning of respondent Nos. 2 to 13, namely, Jaidev son of Surender; Naresh son of Virender; Anil son of Hukam Chand; Ramesh son of Hukam Chand; Surmila wife of Devender; Sarla wife of Hukam Chand; Beerwati wife of Virender; Samoti wife of Surender; Sarita wife of Moolchand; Pinki wife of Ramesh; Neelam wife of Dayanand; and Dharme Mistri, as additional accused, was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos. 2 to 13 alongwith their co -accused, who are facing trial, were attributed specific role while reporting the matter to the police and the injuries assigned to them (respondent Nos. 2 to 13) were coinciding with the medico -legal reports of the injured, namely, Bhram Parkash, Ramanand, Kela Devi, Parmod, Dayawati and Neelam. He further submits that during his deposition, PW -1 Parmod Kumar (petitioner) reiterated his initial version and specifically deposed regarding the role of each of the private respondent. He further submitted that the relevant facts have been discussed in para No. 10 of the impugned order where learned Trial Court has failed to discuss the injuries inflicted by the private respondents on the injured persons, mentioned here -in -above. He further submits that prima facie sufficient material has emerged on record to connect the private respondents with the alleged offences and they should have been ordered to be summoned. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments delivered in the cases of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others, : 2014 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 623 and Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and another v. State of Gujarat and others, : 2014 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 915.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 13 submits that after thorough investigation, the investigating agency came to the conclusion that Ramesh son of Hukam Chand was not present in the village where the alleged occurrence had taken place and that the other persons proposed to be summoned had not participated in the occurrence and, as such, learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer for their summoning as additional accused. He further submits that it is illogical that 18 persons armed with various types of weapons would cause injuries and the injured would sustain only 20 -23 injuries. He has further pointed out that out of twelve persons sought to be summoned as additional accused, seven are women. In support of his contentions, he has also placed reliance on the same judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.