IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 14.02.2025 Suresh Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. S.S. Antal, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

1. The petitioner/complainant is challenging the order dated

13.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused/private respondents namely, Ashish son of Ajmer, Sanju @ Deepak son of Ajit, Amit son of Kuldeep and Ravi son of Sanjay Kumar, was dismissed.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order is legally unsustainable and warrants interference.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the case originates from FIR No.212 dated 13.04.2022 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 302 of the IPC registered at Police Station Narnaud, District Hisar, on the complaint of the petitioner. In both the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner specifically named the private respondents as being the perpetrators of the crime in question. However, when the charge sheet was filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. on 22.07.2022, the private respondents were not named as accused.

4. It has been further submitted that the Post Mortem Report of deceased Ankit dated 25.04.2022 reveals that he suffered five injuries on his person. The petitioner, while deposing as PW-12 before the learned Trial Court on 13.09.2024, reiterated that the private respondents participated in the attack, inflicting number of injuries on the deceased with bricks, fists, and legs, leading to his death. Accordingly, application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was filed to summon them along with one other accused Abhishek. The learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence, allowed the application only against accused Abhishek, however, erred in dismissing it with respect to the private respondents on the ground that they were not visible in the video footage of the occurrence in question. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this finding of the learned Trial Court is flawed, as the summoning of accused should not have been based only on the video footage but also on the testimony of the petitioner, who was an eye witness to the occurrence in question. It has been further submitted that the petitioner had not only named the private respondents while lodging the FIR in question but had even named them in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter again detailed their role while appearing before the learned Trial Court. A prayer has, therefore, been made for summoning the private respondents as additional accused.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material on record, including the allegations levelled in the FIR annexed as Annexure P-1.

6. As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant and deceased Ankit were Kabaddi players; an altercation broke out between Ankit and the accused party. Several persons, including the private respondents allegedly assaulted Ankit. Specifically, accused Vikas, Sachin, struck the deceased on his head with bricks, while the private respondents allegedly assaulted the deceased with punches and kicks. Following the incident, the deceased was hospitalized in an unconscious state and thereafter succumbed to his injuries.

7. Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Trial court to summon any person not already an accused if it appears from the evidence recorded that they have committed an offence for which they could be tried together with the accused already before the Court. However, the exercise of this power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is not mechanical and must be guided by well settled legal principles. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has laid down the evidentiary standard for