SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Joginder Singh & Another vs State Of Haryana & Another on 17 July, 2018

CRR-2273-2018 -1-


Date of decision:-17.7.2018

Joginder Singh and another


State of Haryana and another


Present: Mr.N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate
for the petitioners.



This revision petition is directed against the order dated

31.5.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram

summoning the petitioners as additional accused to face trial under

Sections 328 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The criminal machinery in this case set into motion by the

complainant, who on 29.7.2016 went to Police Station Sector 40,

Gurugram and submitted a written information to the effect that his eldest

1 of 5
22-07-2018 15:34:37 :::
CRR-2273-2018 -2-

daughter (victim) aged 19 years doing ANM course residing in the hostel

had been missing from the hostel since 28.7.2016. As per his information,

his said daughter had been enticed away by Krishan and in that act, Opin

@ Satpal, Jaswant and Krishan Kuldeep were also involved.

After registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated. It

came out that victim and Krishan had consumed some poisonous

substance and were admitted in PGI MS, Rohtak. Then statement of

victim was got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Offences under

Sections 376(g) and 328 IPC were added. Accused Krishan was arrested

in this case. Though the victim had taken names of Kuldeep, Satpal,

Jaswant, Billu @ Sarabjeet and Jogender but they were found to be

innocent and Sections 120-B, 376(g) and 328 IPC were deleted from the

FIR and challan for the offence under Section 376 IPC only was filed in

the Court against Krishan. After commitment of the case by the Illaqa

Magistrate to the Court of Sessions, it was assigned to the Court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram. The trial against accused Krishan

started. Statement of victim was recorded as PW2. Then application under

Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Kuldeep, Opin @ Satpal, Jaswant,

Billu @ Sarawjeet and Jogender as additional accused was filed. The trial

Court allowed the application in light of the law on the subject and

considering the evidence available on record besides the facts of the case.

Paras No.16 and 17 of the order are very important and are being

reproduced as under:

Closely appreciating the word to word evidence of

victim(PW2), in all her statement recorded so far and the

2 of 5
22-07-2018 15:34:38 :::
CRR-2273-2018 -3-

statement of the complainant father, these are direct

allegations raised by her against Kuldeep to have been part

and parcel of the same. Sequence of incidents when Krishan

had enticed her away for taking her to Haridwar o the date

of 28.7.2016. She had made direct allegations on Kuldeep,

Jaswant and Opin @ Satpal along with Krishan who have

committed gang rape upon her in the Dharamshala room at

Haridwar on 28.7.2016. In the further incident that had taken

place on 29.7.2016, when Krishan and she were travelling in

the bus near village Kulhana, Kuldeep, Billu @ Sarabjeet

and Jogender to have forced her and Krishan to be now

loaded in a vehicle and she forcibly made to drink phenol

and case words used against her to insult her.

The statement of the witness for the time of recording

her statement before learned Area Magistrate and now

before the Court as PW2 is in the same consistency and

sequence narrated and inspired the confidence as her

versioin is also supported by father witness examined as

PW1. Though there is an observation made by learned

defence counsel that DNA report has been received in this

case which is non incriminating but the same cannot be taken

account today as time had lapsed from the time when the

victim had alleged gang rape taking place with her and the

time when her medical examination was done. Negating

these observations and finding sufficient material on record

3 of 5
22-07-2018 15:34:38 :::
CRR-2273-2018 -4-

to invite the invocation of sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 328

IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled

Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 against accused

Kuldeep, Section 376(2)(n) IPC against accused Jaswant,

Section 376(2) (n) against accused Opin @ Satpal and

Section 328 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste and

Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 against

accused Billu @ Sarabjeet, Jogender and to face trial along

with co-accused Krishan, I find convincing and clinching

material on record file against the proposed accused to

summon them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Hence the

application in hand is hereby allowed.

Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court by

way of filing the instant revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners besides going

through the record.

The law is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this

Court is quite limited. This Court is to interfere only if there is an

illegality or infirmity apparent on the face of the judgment/order passed

by a Court below or the same is perverse and not otherwise.

Even though the petitioners are not named in the FIR but it is

to be noted that the simple purpose for registration of FIR is to set the

criminal machinery into motion and it may not contain all the necessary

details since most of times, it is lodged in hurry. It is only during the

4 of 5
22-07-2018 15:34:38 :::
CRR-2273-2018 -5-

investigation that one can come to know about the exact details of the

incident, the persons who had participated therein and role played by each

one of them. Furthermore, even if some persons whose names figured as

culprits during the investigation are given clean chit by the police, then

the Court during trial can certainly summon those, if their involvement is

found to be there from the depositions available on the record. Here

during the course of investigation when statement of victim was recorded

under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had specifically named both the petitioners

and attributed criminal acts to them. Though the police did not challan

them holding them to be innocent but again in her statement in the Court,

the victim had reiterated that version on oath. The trial Court by giving

proper reasoning and considering the law on the subject has summoned

them as an additional accused.

In the present case, I do not find any such illegality or

infirmity with the impugned order much less apparent on the face of it.

The order is certainly not in violation of settled principles of criminal

jurisprudence. I do not see any reason to upset the impugned order.

Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same stands


17.7.2018 (H.S.MADAAN)

Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

5 of 5
22-07-2018 15:34:38 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation