IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRR No.438 of 2023

Date of Decision: February 15, 2023

Kanwer Singh

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

…Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:-

Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

DEEPAK GUPTA

, J.(Oral)

This revision is directed against the order dated 15.12.2022

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in Sessions Case

No.576/2018 arising out of case FIR No.120 dated 13.07.2018, under

Sections 302, 201/34 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station

Jalandhar, whereby application of the prosecution moved under Section

319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondent No.2 Baksho as an additional

accused, has been dismissed.

2.

As per the FIR lodged on the statement of Kanwer Singh, on

12.07.2018 at about 3 p.m., his son Sukhjit Singh @ Sukhan (since

deceased) went away from home. At 6.30 p.m., complainant was sitting

near water tank on Bhardwajian Road, when he noticed his son on the

motorcycle of Amarjit Singh at the water tank. The said motorcycle was

being driven by his son; whereas Amarjit Singh and Pawan Kumar @

Pawani were sitting behind. Sukhjit Singh @ Sukhan did not return. On

13.07.2018, dead body of Sukhjit Singh @ Sukhan was found lying in

the water channel with the injuries marks on throat and right wrist and

other parts of the body. After registration of the FIR on 13.07.2018,

statement (Annexure P3) of Kulwinder Kaur wife of Kanwer Singh, i.e.

mother of the deceased was recorded on 15.07.2018 under Section 161

SARITA RANI

2023.02.17 16:25

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

document/order

CRR No.438 of 2023

Cr.P.C., as per which her son had left home on 12.07.2018 at 3 p.m. and

had come back at 4 p.m. and that at about 5 p.m., Baksho along with

Amarjit Singh and Pawan Kumar @ Pawani had come and had taken

Sukhjit Singh @ Sukhan with them on the pretext of returning money,

which was payable to him and later on dead body of Sukhjit Singh @

Sukhan was fond on 13.07.2018.

3.

After investigation, police challaned Amarjit Singh S/o

Dharampal and Rahul @ Pappu to prosecute them under section 302 and

201 read with Section 34 IPC. Trial began, during which Kanwer Singh,

the author of the FIR appeared as PW1. After his statement, an

application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondent No.2-

Baksho wife of Dharampal was moved by the prosecution, which was

dismissed by the Trial Court on 14.11.2019 (Annexure P7). Thereafter,

statement (Annexure P8) of Smt. Kulwinder Kaur, mother of the

deceased was recorded as PW2 and then fresh application under Section

319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning respondent No.2-Baksho wife of

Dharampal as an additional accused, which has been dismissed by way of

impugned order.

4.

It is submitted by the petitioner that during investigation,

Kulwinder Kaur had specifically stated that in her presence, Amarjit

Singh, Pawan Kumar @ Pawani and Baksho had come to their house and

had called Sukhjit Singh @ Sukhan, who had accompanied them and

thereafter, the dead body of her son was found on the next day. It is

submitted further that same statement has been reiterated by Kulwinder

Kaur before the Trial Court and therefore, the application under Section

319 Cr.P.C. has been wrongly dismissed simply for the reason that earlier

Page no.2 out of 6 pages

SARITA RANI

2023.02.17 16:25

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

document/order

CRR No.438 of 2023

application had been dismissed because by the time of moving the earlier

application, statement of Kulwinder Kaur, PW2 had not been recorded.

5.

Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioner, I find no merit in the present revision petition.

6.

Section 319 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

“319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be

guilty of offence.—(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or

trial of, an offence, it appears from the