The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 319 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for evidence to form a prima facie view and the intent to ensure no person who appears to have committed an offense is let off.

JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J. - The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6.6.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the complainant-petitioner to summon respondent Nos. 2 to 7 as additional accused was dismissed.

Factual aspect:

2. The facts in concise are that on 3.5.2015 at about 10.30 pm, complainant Anil Kumar was going to the house of one Jai Bhagwan for taking his motorcycle. On the way when, he reached in his street, at the same time, accused Vinod and Vickey @ Dinesh, their father Hari Ram, their wives and two sons of accused Vinod attacked him. Accused Vinod gave a farsa blow on his head and other accused inflicted danda, fist and kick blows on his hands and legs. On raising hue and cry by the complainant, Hari Pal @ Mintu, uncle of the complainant and other neighbourhood gathered there and saved him from the clutches of the accused. Thereafter they ran away from the spot with their respective weapons by extending threat to eliminate him. The injured complainant was rushed to PGIMS Rohtak by his uncle. On receiving ruqa, based on the aforesaid statement of the complainant,who was the injured eye witness, an FIR no.161 dated 4.5.2015 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 506 IPC was registered.

Submissions:

3. Learned counsel at the outset draws the attention of this Court to order dated 11.7.2016, whereby notice motion was issued in the case to clarify that the instant petition was not pressed qua respondent Nos. 3 to 7, but only regarding respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court but the investigation was not properly conducted , on account of which, 7 accused, who were attributed specific roles in the FIR were not challaned. Accordingly, it is her submission that an application dated 7.12.2015, Annexure P5, was filed by the complainant for summoning the said accused as left out by the police. A reference to para 2 of the application has been made to draw the attention of the Court to the pleadings, which are to the effect that at the time of recording of the evidence of the complainant as PW5, all the persons who had been placed in column in No.2 by the police were present inside the court to threaten and pressure the injured complainant to compromise the matter. Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 25.7.2016 dismissed the application without properly appreciating the submissions made on behalf of the complainant-petitioner. In order to substantiate her arguments, makes a reference to the FIR, wherein a fact has specifically been mentioned that the complainant had in no uncertain terms got recorded that Vinod, respondent No.2 herein gave a 'farsa' blow and Vicky an iron rod blow on his head. In order to corroborate the said assertion, a reference has been made to MLR of the injured-complainant, Annexure P-3 (colly), wherein two head injuries caused to him were mentioned, one of which at Sr. No.1 was an incised wound. In this regard, the learned counsel makes a reference to the statement of injured complainant, PW5, Annexure P-2, wherein also he had reiterated that accused Vinod- respondent No.2 herein had inflicted 'farsa' blow on his head while Vicky an iron rod blow on his head.

5. Having referred to and placed reliance on the aforesaid documents, the learned counsel has submitted that inspite of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence, the learned trial Court had erred in noticing and recording only one fact that the MLR shows that there is incised wound on the head of the injured-complainant and had no other head injury. Besides the aforesaid it recorded that as per the version of the complainant, accused Dinesh @ Vicky had inflicted iron rod blow on his head and the said iron rod type sharp edged weapon was also recovered. It is the case of the learned coun