LIYAKAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner complainant challenging the order dated 7.1.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balotra in Sessions Case No. 4/2012 (67/2007) State v. Mohan Singh & Ors. whereby the trial court rejected the application of the prosecution for summoning the respondents no. 2 to 9 as additional accused in the case.

(2.) Learned counsel submits that the first informant Barkat Khan in his F.I.R. clearly mentioned the names of the respondents as assail- ants. He submits that when the injured Liyakat was examined in the Court, he has specifically alleged that the respondents herein assaulted him indiscriminately and caused him a large number of injuries. He further submits that the Medical Officer Dr. Balraj Singh, P.W. 1 has mentioned that as many as 16 injuries were found on the person of the injured. Learned counsel thus submits that there is ample evidence on record to show that the respondents were equally responsible for the offences alike the charge-sheeted accused. Thus, he prays that the order impugned deserves to be quashed and the respondents no. 2 to 9 deserve to be summoned for facing trial as additional accused. He submits that the trial court has rejected the application on the ground that it was belated. He points out that Barkat Khan, the first informant and the injured Liyakat, injured were examined the trial court on 14.9.2012 and the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed immediately thereafter. He further submits that the accused sought time for filing reply to the application and the reply was submitted on 17.12.2012. Thus, he submits that the application filed by the petitioner cannot be said to be belated. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Suman v. State, 2010 AIR(SC) 518 in support of his contention and urges that as the respondents were named right from the F.I.R. and during the investigation as well as in the sworn testimony of the3 witnesses, there cannot be any justification from excluding them from the array of the accused to stand trial for the case.

(3.) Per contra Mr. Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.