VED PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS /accused Ved Parkash and Rajesh have assailed the impugned order dated 7-7-1997 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby the application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'code') has been allowed and the petitioners have been summoned in a pending Sessions Case.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that there was a dispute over a Shisham tree between the accused party and the complainant party, which was settled through a compromise but the accused party still nursed a grudge against the complainant party. On 25-11-1996 at about 4. 00 p. m. complainant's younger brother Ved Ram had gone to his field. Accused Mohinder, Pawan Kumar, Ram Sarup, Hans Raj and petitioners Ved Parkash and Rajesh attempted to waylay him. Anyhow he managed to escape. He narrated the incident to the complainant. A few minutes later all the aforesaid six persons came there. Rajesh (petitioner) and the accused Mahender caught hold of Harbans Lal, the deceased while Ved Parkash (Petitioner) and Ram Sarup caused injuries to him by means of ballam, Ved Parkash caused injuries on the mouth of Harbans Lal. Ram Sarup caused ballam injuries to him below the left wrist. When the complainant tried to intervene, accused Pawan and Hans Raj inflicted injuries on his head with ballam. The complainant fell down. His shrieks attracted Satish, Manoj and Ved Parkash, who came and rescued Harbans Lal and the complainant, from the accused persons. All the accused persons also caused injuries to Ved Ram. Satish, Manoj and Ved Parkash removed the injured to General Hospital, Palwal, wherefrom Harbans Lal was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. While on the way to Hospital Harbans Lal succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of the statement of the complainant the F. I. R. was registered against all the six accused persons under Sections 148/149/323/324/302, IPC.

(3.) DURING trial, statement of Bal Krishan, P. W. 1 was recorded. At that very time, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of the Code. The learned defence counsel declined to cross-examine Bal Krishan at that stage in view of the fact that learned public prosecutor has moved an application for summoning Ved Parkash and Rajesh also as accused in this case. Thus after hearing arguments, the impugned order was passed and the petitioners Ved Parkash and Rajesh were summoned for facing the aforesaid trial.