TARIF SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.1.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak in terms of which an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the private respondent herein, namely, Virender son of Sat Narain to face trial as additional accused in case FIR No.312 dated 20.10.2014, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak has been dismissed.

(2.) It may, briefly, be noticed that the FIR in question was registered on the statement of Tarif Singh relating to an incident that took place on 20.10.2014. Complainant had stated that he was working at PGI, Rohtak and his elder brother Baljit was serving in Jat College. It is further stated that complainant as also his brother had been illegally dispossessed from their ancestral land by Jaivir son of Ramesh, Sat Narain @ Sattu, his son Surender and Rakesh son of Krishan. There was litigation between the parties and on 21.10.2014, the Tehsildar and SHO were to facilitate the possession of ancestral land back to the complainant and his brother in pursuance to Court orders. On 20.10.2014, elder brother of complainant Baljit was returning back home to Rohtak at 10.00 O'Clock on his motorcycle and when he crossed Satyam Mall, Sonepat road, then two young men came on a motorcycle from behind and opened fire. One bullet is stated to have hit Baljit on the right side of back and second bullet hit on the wrist of the left hand. Complainant stated that he was following his brother Baljit on another motorcycle. Both the young boys were stated to have fled away from the spot. Baljit was got admitted to PGI Rohtak, but succumbed to the fire arm injuries suffered on the same very date i.e. 20.10.2014. Accusation levelled is that there was previous enmity with Jaivir and Sat Narain with regard to illegal possession of ancestral land and, as such, the accused by hatching a conspiracy had got Baljit killed by the two young boys.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that immediately thereafter i.e. one day after the occurrence, supplementary statement of complainant Tarif Singh, brother of the deceased, was recorded on 21.10.2014 in which he had specifically named Virender son of Sat Narain (private respondent No.2 herein) to be involved in the conspiracy resulting in murder of his brother Baljit on 20.10.2014. Learned counsel submits that even deposition of Tarif Singh while being examined before the trial Court as PW1 is on the similar lines wherein again the name of Virender sought to be summoned as additional accused was named as a member of the gang who had hatched the conspiracy. It has been argued that the trial Court has erred in not exercising its powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the private respondent as additional accused.