The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strong and cogent evidence to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and the need for specific allegations corresponding to injuries in the medical legal report.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 16.11.2016, passed by the trial Court, vide which the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused while allowing an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in case/FIR No. 12 dated 07.01.2016, registered under Sections 323, 325, 341, 506, 307 and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Kalanwali, District Sirsa.

2. It is worth noticing here that this petition is pending since 2017 and since the proceedings before the trial Court were stayed, this case was taken upon in the urgent list and arguments were heard.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of complainant/respondent No. 2 Kuldeep Singh with the allegations that he is an agriculturist and in the evening of 06.01.2016, he, along with his paternal uncle Baljinder Singh, was going to a shop. When they reached near the house of one Ajaib Singh, petitioners Kaur Singh, Manpreet Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Sarabjeet Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Jagseer Singh along with Gursewak Singh and Sukhdev Singh were standing carrying lathi, dandas, kappa, rods etc. in their hands. Then Kaur Singh stated that Baljinder Singh has never cast his vote in their favour and will not cast vote even on that day, so he should be eliminated by giving beatings. Thereafter, Sewak Singh gave a kappa blow on the head of Baljinder Singh which landed on his forehead and Baljinder Singh fell down. When the complainant tried to rescue Baljinder Singh, Kaur Singh again stated that if he will intervene, he will also be eliminated. Due to this, the complainant remained standing out of fear. Thereafter, Manpreet Singh gave a lathi blow on the chest of Baljinder Singh and Sarabjeet gave danda blow on the mouth of Baljinder Singh; Gurmeet Singh gave gandasi blow on the left hip of Baljinder Singh; Sukhdev Singh gave a lathi blow on the left thigh of Baljinder Singh and Gurpreet Singh, Jagseer Singh and Gursewak gave kicks blow to Baljinder Singh. When Baljinder Singh raised voice to save him, many persons came there, upon which, accused persons left the place. Thereafter, the complainant, along with Jagseer Singh and Avtar Singh, brought Baljinder Singh to Govt. Hospital, Sirsa. The police, thereafter, recorded the statement of the complainant and registered the present FIR.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that as per the MLR of Baljinder Singh, doctor has reported five injuries, which are as under:

"1. Lacerated wound of size 5x2 cm is present horizontally over frontal region along midline with fresh bleeding present.

2. Lacerated wound of size 2x0.5 cm is present over just above the hip with fresh bleeding.

3. Bruise of size 4x2 cm is present over lateral aspect of left thigh middle l/3 rd and is of reddish colour.

4. Diffuse swelling present over B/L eyes.

5. Bruise of size 5x2 cm is present over right middle of chest and is of reddish in colour."

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further argued that initially the FIR was registered under Sections 323, 148, 149, 341, 506 and 109 of the IPC, however, later on, the victim/injured was shifted to Bombay Hospital, Sirsa, where the doctor gave an opinion that injury No. 1 is dangerous to life, subsequent to which, Section 307 IPC was added.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that after the registration of the FIR, an inquiry was conducted by two DSPs. The operative part of the inquiry report reads as under:

"That on 23.02.16 I had verified the investigation of the case in village Jagmalwali, during verification the place of occurrence was inspected and inquiry was conducted from the persons residing in the houses near the place of occurrence and inquiry was conducted from both the parties separately. During verification, complainant party stated all the persons mentioned in the First Information Report to be the real accused persons and t