The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient prima facie evidence to establish the commission of alleged offences, and the need for a re-examination of the summoning based on the available evidence.

AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.03.2012, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, as also the order passed by the revisional Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur), on 05.01.2016.

2. By the first order, the Magistrate has summoned respondents no. 2 and 3 herein, upon a complaint having been filed by the petitioner, alleging therein the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, on account of the death of Tarlok Singh, the father of the petitioner.

3. As per the impugned order of the JMIC, the complainants' case is that on 23.01.2016, he along with his father, and mother (Balbir Kaur) were present at his house situated in the fields. At about 12:30 p.m., when his father had gone towards the “motor” on the southern side of the fields, thereafter, upon hearing some noise, the complainant and his mother came out of their house and saw respondents no. 2 and 3 abusing Tarlok Singh, with respondent no. 3 allegedly having pushed Tarlok Singh, and thereafter having given him a kick blow on his head, with respondent no. 2 Piara Singh having given a blow on the left knee of Tarlok Singh.

4. Upon seeing the complainant and his mother approaching the spot, the respondent-accused are stated to have fled away from the spot.

5. Tarlok Singh was taken to Bhatia Hospital, Qadian, where he was declared dead; and FIR No. 09 was registered on the same date (23.01.2006), at Police Station Qadian, Police District Batala, alleging therein the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, read with Section 34 thereof.

6. It was also stated in the complaint that the heart of the deceased was sent for pathological examination to the Medical College at Amritsar, but allegedly it was replaced with another sample of a uterus, the allegation of such replacement again also made against the accused in order that 'important link evidence be destroyed.'

7. The complainants' grievance further was that despite numerous applications filed before the police authorities, no action was taken, thereby leading to the complaint being filed.

8. The impugned order of the Magistrate further goes on to state that in preliminary evidence, the following witnesses were examined.

1. Dr. Charan Kamal as CW-1;

2. Waryam Singh, Kanungo, Halqa Qadian, as CW-2;

3. the complainant himself, as CW-3;

4. Dalbir Kaur as CW-4 and

5. Constable Balwant Singh as CW-5.

9. A small summary of the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses has been given in paragraph 4 of the impugned order.

10. It has also been, thereafter, stated that qua the FIR registered, a cancellation report was presented, but with the complainant having made a statement to the effect that he did not agree with the said report and the case therefore, sent for further investigation, with again a cancellation report filed before the Court, to the effect that from the statements of the witnesses, as recorded by the police, and other material gathered during investigation, it transpired that no such occurrence took place; and in fact Tarlok Singh had slipped in his fields, after which he was taken to a Registered Medical Practitioner, who advised that he be admitted to hospital, where he was declared to have been brought dead.

11. Having noticed the above, the impugned order thereafter goes on to state as follows:-

“Evidence brought on record by the complainant does not even remotely established on record any ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC justifying summoning of the accused for committing murder of deceased Tarlok Singh. It is considered case of the complainant that only a push was given by Harjit Singh and thereafter he gave a kick blow on the head of deceased Tarlok Singh. The only attribution to accused Piara Singh that he gave kick blow on the left knee of Tarlok Singh. Admittedly none of the above named accused were armed with any weapon. Neither in the complaint nor in the evidence complainant or