IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2291-2017
Date of decision: 21.05.2018
Baljinder Kaur and others
…Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
…Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. A.S. Sandhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
****
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
1. The petitioners herein seek to challenge order dated
01.03.2017, whereby they have been summoned to face trial as additional
accused on an application filed under section 319 Cr. P.C .
2. In brief, the facts are that FIR No. 182 dated 10.10.2015 came
to be registered at Police Station Samana under Sections 363 366A IPC at
the behest of Rani w/o of late Jagtar Singh. It was stated that she has four
children out of which two were sons and two daughters and all were
unmarried. Her husband had passed away about 8 years ago. Her stepbrother
Pali Ram aged 19 years came to reside with her for constructing her house
at her village and while residing with her made a physical relationship with
her young daughter Pooja. Pali Ram induced her young daughter Pooja to
1 of 9
22-05-2018 02:25:20 :::
CRR-2291-2017 -2-
runaway, and with the help of relatives she was brought back. On the
intervening night of 7th /8th of October 2015. Pali Ram again induced Pooja
to leave by misleading her that he would marry her. It was stated in the FIR
that efforts were made to trace both Pali Ram and Pooja but the complainant
was unable to do so, which led to the registration of the FIR. After living in
Amritsar for a short period, Pali Ram then took rented accommodation at
Patiala where both of them resided. While at Patiala, she informed her
neighbor Binder Kaur wife of Jagtar Singh about her situation, who then
adopted her on 15.07.2016. It transpires that when her adoptive mother was
not at home, on 17.07.2016 her uncle Gurpal Singh accompanied by three
other persons forcibly put her in a white colour van and took her to a house
in village Raipur Mandlan and kept there for 2- 3 hours and thereafter took
her to Pacific Resort Factory Area, Patiala, where she was forcibly raped by
Gurpal Singh and the three other known as Bachittar Singh, Ramji Dass and
Jeet, threatened to kill her in case she disclosed the incident to anyone. She
was taken to the Police Station by Binder Kaur and her statement was
recorded on 20.07.2016. On the statement recorded, a case was registered
against accused Gurpal Singh, Bachittar Singh, Ramji Dass and Jeet under
Sections 363, 366, 376, 506, 120-B IPC. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was
sent to Nari Niketan and Binder Kaur appeared in Court and stated that Rani
Kaur ( the biological mother of Pooja and the complainant in the FIR ) had
given her up by way of an adoption deed dated 15.07.2016. On the basis of
the statement made and while relying upon statement of the prosecutrix
recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C on 20.07.2016, that Binder Kaur was her
2 of 9
22-05-2018 02:25:21 :::
CRR-2291-2017 -3-
adoptive mother, custody was handed over to said Binder Kaur. Thereafter,
another statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C on 26.08.2016 in
which an allegation was made that Binder Kaur is indulging in business of
prostitution from her home. On 27.08.2016, another statement was recorded
under section 161 Cr.P.C in which it was further elaborated that Binder
Kaur used to get ‘wrong thing’ done and that she is in the business of flesh
trade, while stating that she wanted to live with her mother, at village
Asman Nagar @ Nijamni Wala. After she came to reside with her mother,
another statement of the prosecutrix came to be recorded on 23.11.2016
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein it was stated that she had filed two
applications bearing No. 3404/OP dated 09.10.2016, 7288/PESHI dated
03.11.2016, 258/E dated 09.11.2016, to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Patiala on the asking of her mother and the applications were to be treated
as a statement in which it was mentioned that Ex. Sarpanch son of Sandhu
Singh, resident of Ranjit Nagar Seona, Balwinder Singh, Lakhwinder Singh
sons of Labh Singh and Jassi committed rape upon her against her wishes at
the house of Binder Kaur and Baljinder Kaur. It was stated that Binder Kaur
and Baljinder Kaur made her do immoral activities and made her life hell.
After framing of charges, statement of Pooja was recorded on 23.11.2016,
wherein she reiterated the fact that Binder Kaur was indulging in immoral
activities at her place and that she forced her to develop physical relations
with other persons namely Ex. Sarpanch son of Sandhu Ram, resident of
Ranjit Nagar Seona, Lakhwinder Singh and Balvinder Singh sons of Labh
Singh and Jassi who was residing in the house of Baljinder Kaur. She also
3 of 9
22-05-2018 02:25:21 :::
CRR-2291-2017 -4-
identified her signatures on her statement while also identifying the
applications moved by her before SSP, Patiala. At this stage, the prosecution
sought an adjournment to move an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C for
summoning additional accused, namely, the petitioners herein. The said
application was allowed and aggrieved against the said order, the instant
petition has been filed.
3. Mr P.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners herein, contends that the prosecutrix had not been named the
petitioners at the first instance nor were their names reflected in the FIR. It
is only when a supplementary statement was recorded on 23.11.2016 that
she introduced the names of the petitioners, with allegations of petitioner
No.1 conniving with Binder Kaur in running a flesh trade and accusing
petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 of committing the offence of rape. It is argued that
the prosecutrix had initially named only Gurpal Singh and Binder Kaur,
while having her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
and thereafter there has been an improvement in her statement recorded and
the petitioners have unnecessarily been roped in. Counsel for the petitioners
also places reliance on the judgement cited as Hardeep Singh vs. State of
Punjab and others, 2014(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 623 to argue that without
any substantial evidence, summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be
wholly unsustainable. It is submitted that the test as laid down in Harpdeep
Singh’s case (supra) is that for the Courts to summon a person as an
additional accused, there has to be strong evidence available other than
mere probability.
4 of 9
22-05-2018 02:25:21 :::
CRR-2291-2017 -5-
4. Per contra Mr. A.S. Sandhu, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent State submits that in fact the prosecutrix had
suffered a statement in Court and in the application submitted to the
Superintendent of Police Patiala about the complicity of the petitioners in
the commission of the offence of rape and they had rightly been summoned.
5. Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that when a
trial is going on and the Court comes to know from the evidence which has
been put forth before the Court that some other person who is not appearing
before the Court as an accused person might have committed the offence,
the Court can summon such person before itself. The purpose of Section
319 Cr.P.C. is to do complete justice between the parties and to ensure that
persons, who ought to have been tried, do not escape. However, before
summoning such a person, the material available should disclose the
complicity of the person in commission of the offence which has to be the
material that appears from evidence during the course of any inquiry. The
Courts are required to apply the test as to whether evidence on record is
such, which would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be
summoned.
6. The law is now well settled as regards summoning a person as
an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which power has to be
exercised sparingly and with caution. Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2014) 3 SCC 92 the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held:
“105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is a
discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised
5 of 9
22-05-2018 02:25:21 :::
CRR-2291-2017 -6-
sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of
the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the
Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some
other person may also be guilty of committing that offence.
Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a
person from the evidence led before the court that such power
should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to
be established from the evidence led before the court, not
necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires
much stronger evidence than mere probability of his
complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more
than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of
charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence,
if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of
such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising
power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C the
purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any
person not being the accused has committed any offence” is
clear from the words “for which such person could be tried
together with the accused”. The words used are not “for which
such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope
for the court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any
opinion as to the guilt of the accused.”
(emphasis supplied).
7. In the present case, an FIR was registered at the behest of
mother of the prosecutrix Pooja alleging that her minor daughter had been
enticed away by her stepbrother Pali Ram and on the basis of the statement
6 of 9
22-05-2018 02:25:21 :::
CRR-2291-2017 -7-
offence under Sections 363 366-A IPC was made out against Gurpal @
Pali Ram. As it transpires, Pali Ram took rented accommodation at Patiala,
where she came in contact with Binder Kaur and narrated her story to her. It
appears that Binder Kaur thereafter adopted the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the
prosecutrix went to the Police Station along with Binder Kaur and recorded
her statement on 20.07.2016. The prosecutrix in her statement dated
20.7.2016 alleged that on 17.07.2016, when Binder Kaur was not at home,
Gurpal Singh @ Pali forcibly took her in a white car and took her to Village
Raipur Mandlan where they kept her for 2-3 hours and then they took her to
Pacific Resort, Factory Area, Patiala where, Pali Ram forcibly raped her.
Hence, the above mentioned FIR was registered. Statement of Pooja was
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, wherein it came to be mentioned that
Binder Kaur is indulging in prostitution business from her home, and in a
supplementary statement dated 27.8.2016 she further elaborated that Binder
Kaur used to get ‘wrong things’ done from her. The prosecutrix also
submitted that she wanted to reside with her mother at Village Asman Nagar
@ Nijammi Wala. It is thereafter that she preferred applications bearing No.
3404/OP dated 09.10.2016, 7288/PESHI dated 3.11.2016, 258/E dated
09.11.2016, naming the petitioners herein as persons who committed rape
upon her against her wishes at the house of Binder Kaur and Baljinder Kaur.
8. After the framing of charges, statement of PW1 Pooja was
recorded on 09.02.2017, wherein she specifically named the petitioners
herein, apart from the names of the other accused. The argument as raised
by the counsel for the petitioners that their names were not reflected in the
7 of 9
22-05-2018 02:25:21 :::
CRR-2291-2017 -8-
FIR or that prosecutrix had not named them in the first instance, is not
sustainable. The case in hand is not one that deals with provisions under
Section 406/498A IPC where it has been noticed that there is a growing
tendency to implicate all family members of the husband just to harass them.
It is true that the petitioners had not been named in the FIR, but the fact
cannot be lost sight of the fact that the mother who initially registered the
FIR against Pali Ram would not be aware of the subsequent events.
9. As far as the contention raised that the prosecutrix had not
named them in the two subsequent statements and had only named them at
the behest of her mother, too cannot be sustained. From the very outset
when the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C on 26.08. 2016 at 9.39 p.m., she has maintained that Binder Kaur is
indulging in prostitution business and thereafter again reiterated the same in
her supplementary statement. After she left to reside with her mother, again
submitted an application to the SSP naming the petitioners herein. The
statement made on 27.08.2016, application filed before the Superintendent
of Police and statement in Court after charges are framed, are consistent in
naming the petitioners herein. The role of the petitioners could not have
been investigated at the time of registration of the FIR since they were not
named therein. It is only when the prosecutrix went back to reside with her
mother that other names followed. The complainant could not be aware of
any events that transpired subsequent to the prosecutrix being allured out of
her home.
10. The argument as raised that there is a thirteen month delay,
8 of 9
22-05-2018 02:25:21 :::
CRR-2291-2017 -9-
which is a substantial delay in the statement forthcoming naming the
petitioners, is without merit. The FIR was registered at the behest of Rani
the mother of the prosecutrix in FIR No. 182 dated 10.10.2015. For the first
time, a statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 20.07.2016. Thereafter,
she got recorded her supplementary statement on 26.08.2016 and asked to
go back to reside with her mother. Once she went back to her maternal
home, she submitted applications dated 09.10.2016, 03.11.2016 and
09.11.2016 to the Superintendent of Police and again suffered a statement
naming the petitioners herein. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is
undue delay.
11. The prosecutrix has been specific in her allegation and
consistent therein about Binder Kaur running a prostitution ring. She has
also been consistent in naming the petitioners which fact has been noticed
by the Additional Session Judge while allowing the application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case when there are allegations of rape, immoral trafficking
activities read with provisions of the POCSO Act, no ground is made out to
set aside the impugned order.
12. Dismissed.
21.05.2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Satyawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes.
Whether reportable No.
9 of 9
22-05-2018 02:25:21 :::