The court emphasized the need for admissible evidence and the discretionary power of the court to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on the quality of evidence collected.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The present petition has been filed against the order dated 11.10.2022 whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon respondent No.2/Kuldeep Kaur as an additional accused in case FIR No.16 dated 21.01.2020 under Sections 302, 34 IPC, at Police Station Sadar Samana, has been dismissed.

2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of the petitioner/complainant-Kuldeep Singh, son of Karnail Singh who stated that they were two brothers and two sisters. His elder sister, namely, Sarabjit Kaur (deceased) aged about 34 years, was married to Amrik Singh @ Lali son of respondent No.2-Kuldeep Kaur around 16 years ago. Two sons, namely, Damanpreet Singh, aged about 14 years and Yadvinder Singh, aged 12 years were born from the said marriage. Amrik Singh was working as a Veterinary doctor. Since the last one and a half years, his brother-in-law/ Amrik Singh (husband of the deceased-Sarabjit Kaur), his brother Jassi @ Kala and their mother-Kuldeep Kaur (respondent No.2) had been giving beatings to his sister. A complaint had also been submitted by him in this regard at Police Station Mavi Kalan. Thereafter, on 19.01.2020, his brother-in-law/Amrik Singh @ Lali alongwith his relatives had come and had taken away his (petitioner’s) sister Sarabjit Kaur to her matrimonial village Belu Majra. On the date of the occurrence, his brother-in-law/Amrik Singh @ Lali had called him and informed him that Sarabjit Kaur had committed suicide by hanging herself from a ceiling fan. On this he (complainant-Kuldeep Singh) alongwith his brother-Mandeep Singh and uncle-Jasbir Singh as well as certain other persons had gone to the spot i.e. the house of Amrik Singh at village Belu Majra where they found the dead body of his sister lying on the bed with strangulation marks on her neck. On their enquiry, they came to know that his brother-in-law/Amrik Singh and his mother, namely, Kuldeep Kaur had killed his sister-Sarabjit Kaur by strangulating her with the help of a rope. His brother-in-law often used to say while beating his sister that he would perform a second marriage after killing her and used to extend threats of divorce on some occasions.

3. Pursuant to the registration of the aforementioned FIR, an enquiry was conducted and it was found that respondent No.2-Kuldeep Kaur had not been present at the matrimonial home when the deceased was purportedly done to death by Amrik Singh-her husband. Based on the said enquiry report, the respondent No.2 was exonerated and the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted against Amrik Singh @ Lali son of Pritam Singh.

4. After framing of charges, the statement of the complainant-petitioner Kuldeep Singh was recorded as PW-1, and thereafter, an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the respondent No.2 as an additional accused to face trial alongwith the accused already facing trial.

5. The said application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide order dated 11.10.2022.

It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trial Court had ignored the fact that respondent No.2-Kuldeep Kaur had been duly named in the FIR. The statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the persons who had come to the spot alongwith the complainant-petitioner, namely, Mandeep Singh and Jasbir Singh clearly inculpated respondent No.2. The statement of the complainant-Kuldeep Singh recorded in the Court as PW-1 (Annexure P-4) also pointed towards the prima facie culpability of the respondent No.2 for which she ought to be summoned to face trial alongwith Amrik Singh @ Lali. In fact, she had wrongly been exonerated as per the enquiry report (Annexure P-5). Though, it has been stated in the report that the respondent No.2 had not been present at the matrimonial home when the deceased was done to death, the said finding was baseless as the time o