CRR-2273-2018 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-2273-2018
Date of decision:-17.7.2018
Joginder Singh and another
…Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
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
dismissed.
17.7.2018 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
22-07-2018 15:34:38 :::