GURMAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who have been summoned to face trial in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., have challenged the order on the grounds inter alia that they have been found innocent after thorough investigation, but they have been summoned on the basis of same statement which was subject matter of investigation and the petitioner/accused cannot be summoned merely on the ground of suspicion.

(2.) BRIEF factual background of the case is that one Ramandeep Kaur wife of Karamjit Singh alleged that on 10th July, 2008, Gurmail Singh, petitioner No. 1 (maternal uncle of husband of the complainant) and Amarjit Kaur (petitioner No. 2) wife of Gurmail Singh came to their house at 7/8 P.M. On 11th July, 2008 at about 3.30 A.M. before the complainant woke up, her mother-in-law Manjit Kaur, her husband Karamjit Singh and the uncle and aunt aforesaid were already awake. They woke up the complainant and forcibly took her in kitchen and pushed her inside. At that time, there was smell of gas in the kitchen. The mother-in-law lit a match stick and threw it in the kitchen. Due to this reason, clothes of the complainant caught fire. Nobody helped the complainant. The uncle and aunt (Gurmail Singh and Amarjit Kaur) left on a motor cycle. The complainant herself extinguished the fire with the help of a blanket. Thereafter, she was admitted to hospital by mother-in-law, husband and another person. The complainant alleged that the motive to set her on fire was demand of dowry, particularly a car. The complainant suffered serious burn injuries on her stomach, thighs, back and left arm.

(3.) THE complainant stood by her statement that the petitioners had hatched conspiracy with the other accused and had woken up her at 3.30 A.M. on 11th July, 2008. Thereafter, all of them had pushed her into kitchen where cooking gas had already spread as the gas cylinder was already on. Then her mother-in-law lit a matchstick and threw into the kitchen resulting into severe burn injuries to the complainant. The complainant was partly cross- examined by the defence counsel but not much dent could be made in her statement. The trial court, therefore, decided to summon the additional accused (petitioner) in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C.