IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Surinder Gupta, J.
Sugreev Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab And Others - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 2626 of 2014
Decided On : 02-07-2018
Revision - Summoning of Accused - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, 307, 341, 34 and Arms Act, Section 25 - The court discussed the application filed by the prosecution to summon the accused for offenses punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The court analyzed the evidence and found that there was no merit in the revision petition, and dismissed it.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a land dispute that led to a violent occurrence resulting in the death of one person and injuries to several others. The prosecution sought to summon the accused for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no merit in the revision petition and dismissed it. It analyzed the evidence and concluded that no case was made out for summoning the accused as additional accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused should be summoned as additional accused based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows the trial court to summon any person as an accused if there is evidence against them. It emphasized that the power under Section 319 is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, finding no merit in summoning the accused as additional accused.
JUDGMENT
Surinder Gupta, J. - This is revision against order dated 24.07.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, whereby application filed by prosecution to summon respondents no. 2 to 8 and Sonu son of Jai Pal was partly allowed. While Sonu son of Jai Pal was ordered to be summoned as accused to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 341 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and 25 of the Arms Act, application qua respondents no. 2 to 8 was dismissed.
2. Fir (Annexure P-1) in this case was registered on the statement of Manohar Lal, which reads as follows:-
"Statement of Manohar Lal son of Hanuman Ram caste Bishnoi resident of Raipura P.S. Sadar Abohar aged about 35 years stated that I am resident of above said address and is agriculturist. We are three brothers. Sugreev is the elder and younger to him is Sandeep and I. About 4 years back my father namely Hanuman Ram got purchased 9 acres of land from Seth Mohan Lal son of Mokham Chand resident of Fazilka at village Raipura. On that land Dalip son of Hari Ram Parjapat and Others were having possession as tenant but later on we came to know that the possession of this land is purchased by Vikram son of Krishan Dev from Dalip and Others through an affidavit. This land was barren because of that it always remains uncultivated. We filed a case in the Hon'ble Court of SDM for the ejectment of tenants and same was decided in our favour and the SDM Sahib Abohar got the tenant ejected. On dated 29.08.2013 I alongwith my brother Sandeep, Sugreev, my father Hanuman Ram, my uncle (Chacha) Mahi Ram son of Ganpat Ram, Budh Ram son of Hazari Ram, Amar Singh son of Ram Narayan caste Bishnoi resident of Raipura and alongwith our servant Sham Lal son of Tulsi Ram caste Balmik resident of Raipura reached our land to take possession on our Bolero Car bearing No. PB-15-A-0053 driven by my father Hanuman Ram and my brother Sandeep Kumar was sitting on the front seat alongwith my father and rest of the persons were sitting behind. Then the halqua kanungo and patwari, who have to come to spot had not reached there. To bring them to spot we were coming back to our village in our car at about 3.30 pm. When we reached on uncultivated sand dune (tibba) near the colony of our village three vehicles one Innova bearing no. PB-15-F-7329, Bolero and one Swift Car colour white came from the village side. Vikram Gilla son of Krishan Dev armed with 315 bore licence rifle, Vikas son of Krishan Dev armed with licenced pistol and Krishan Dev son of Manohar Lal armed with licenced pistol all resident of Raipura alighted from those vehicles accompanied by 10/12 unidentified persons armed with dangs, sotas and swords, while one person was having 12 bore gun. I can identify those 10/12 persons, if they come in front of me. Vikas exhorted that we shall be taught a lesson for purchasing land and taking possession and the persons armed with weapons fired upon us. Vikram Gilla fired straight at my brother Sandeep and upon my father from his rifle and other armed persons also fired at our Bolero car which hit my father, my brother Sugreev, my uncle Mahi Ram, Budh Ram, our servant Sham Lal and my brother Sandeep Kumar and they got injured. The occurrence was witnessed by me. The assailants, using their weapons, kept us cordoned. We raised the alarm "Marta Marta" at which all the accused fled away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons and vehicles. Thereafter, I brought my brother, father, uncles and servant in vehicle at Civil Hospital, Abohar for treatment where doctor sahib declared Sandeep Kumar as dead. My father Hanuman and my brother were referred to Medical College, Faridkot by doctor as their condition was serious and started the treatment of others at Civil Hospital, Abohar."
3. After investigation police presented the challan against accused Vikram Gilla, Gurmeet Singh and Sunil while respondents no. 2 to 8 were found innocent and not challaned.
4. At the very out
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.