SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Surinder Singh, husband of Raj Kaur deceased, has filed this revision petition against the order dated 20.5.2006, passed by Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby his application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning Rajinder Singh son of Bachan Singh as an additional accused to face trial in FIR No. 347 dated 28.9.1999 under Section 307, 34 IPC (lateron converted to Section 302, 34 IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar, has been dismissed.

(2.) In this case, in the year 1999, the instant case was registered under Section 307 IPC on the statement of deceased Raj Kaur. It was alleged that she was burnt alive by accused Bachan Singh, who is facing trial, his son Rajinder Singh and co-accused Bhajan Singh and Pala. After her death, the FIR was converted into one under Section 302 IPC. After the investigation, challan was filed only against Bachan Singh and that too under Section 306/323/34 IPC. The other accused, including Rajinder Singh son of Bachan Singh were found innocent and they were kept in column No. 2. After examination of four prosecution witnesses, including Judicial Magistrate, before whom the alleged dying declaration was made, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Rajinder Singh son of Bachan Singh and Kishan Singh son of Maghar Singh as additional accused. The said application was dismissed by the trial court on 3.12.2002. Thereafter, petitioner Surinder Singh was examined as PW.6. Again, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Rajinder Singh as an additional accused was filed, which was dismissed on 22.3.2003. Then for the third time, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed, which was dismissed on 17.5.2003, while observing as under:

(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that on earlier occasions, every material, including the dying declaration as well as statement of complainant as PW.6, was considered by the trial court and thereafter, the prayer of the prosecution as well as the complainant was declined. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, whereby the fourth application for summoning Rajinder Singh as an additional accused has been dismissed.