VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant seeking setting aside of the impugned order dtd. 7/4/2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby the application filed under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the prosecution for summoning the private respondents No.2 to 4, namely Baldev Singh son of Mani Ram, Vinod Kumar and Naresh Kumar sons of Om Parkash (respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein), to face the trial, has been dismissed.

(2.) Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand reads thus:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. Learned counsel has further iterated that the statement of the complainant/injured witness (petitioner herein), who stepped into the witness box as PW-1, specifically attributes distinct injuries to each of the proposed accused (respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein), which sufficiently establishes their complicity in the commission of the offence. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the dicta of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92, to contend that the degree of satisfaction required under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. is equivalent to that required at the stage of framing of charge and the testimony of an injured eye-witness should ordinarily be treated as trustworthy unless contradicted by strong evidence. On the strength of above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed for grant of the petition in hand.