K.C. Puri, J.@mdashChallenge in the present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is to the order dated 24.9.2011 passed by Sh. C.L. Mohal, Additonal Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which the revision petition against the order dated 4.11.2009 passed by Sh. Surya Chander Kant, JMIC, Jagadhri, summoning the present petitioners as an accused in FIR No. 483, dated 20.11.2006 under Sections 147, 149, 323, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station City Jagadhri, was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, Mam Chand s/o Ajmer lodged FIR No. 483 dated 20.11.2006 under Sections 147, 149, 323, 506 IPC, at Police Station City Jagadhri, in which he has stated that his house and house of Som Nath are adjoining to each other. In front of their house, Gram Panchayat land is lying vacant. On 19.11.2006 at about 5.00 P.M. in the evening his sister Geeta Devi went to put cow dung in that land, where Bittu and Lucky quarreled with his sister and stopped her not to put the cow dung in that land. There was a dispute in which both the parties have received injuries. His brother Raj Kumar, his father Ajmer Singh, his mother Shanti Devi and wife Sunita received injuries. The complainant and his sister Geeta Devi and his brother-in-law Arjun Singh s/o Sheo Ram got admitted the injured in Civil Hospital, Bilaspur. After conducting the medical of all the four person, doctor has referred them to Civil Hospital, Jagadhri. They all reached at 9.00 P.M. in Civil Hospital, Jagadhri in a three wheeler from Bilaspur. When they entered in the courtyard of the Civil Hospital, Jagadhri, in the courtyard, Lucky s/o Som Nath, Manoj s/o Rulda Ram, Rulda s/o Tidda, Shri Ram s/o Phul Chand, Lachi s/o Phool Chand, Sushan s/o Phool chand, Inderaj s/o Shanker Lal and Som Nath s/o Shanker Lal, residents of village Rasulpur, Pawan r/o Kabulpur, who is relative of Inderaj and three nephews (bhanjas) of Som Nath were sitting holding dandas in their hands. On seeing them, Som Nath raised a lalkara and said that they be caught and not allowed them to go. Manoj caught hold of the complainant. Rulda, Lucky, Lachi and Sushan started beating the complainant with dandas. Rulda gave a danda blow on the right side of hip of the complainant, Lachi gave a kick blow on the forehead of the complainant, Subhas gave a fist blow on the chest of the complainant. Lucky, Bittu and Som Nath gave danda and kick blow to his sister Geeta on her head, waist and in the abdomen. All these persons also gave kick blows to Shanti Devi, mother of the complainant, Ajmer Singh father of the complainant, Raj Kumar, brother of the complainant and Sunita wife of the complainant. Then the persons present in the ward and Arjun Singh s/o Sheo Ram resident of Ranjitpur came at the spot who saved them and the assailants ran away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons.
3. Challan was presented against the other accused. Names of petitioners were placed in column No.2. The prosecution after recording the statement of Mam Chand moved an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the present petitioners as an additional accused. The said application was resisted. Sh. Surya Chander Kant, JMIC, Jagadhri, vide order dated 4.11.2009 ordered the summoning of the present petitioners as additional accused by invoking the provisions u/s 319 Cr.P.C. The said order was challenged before this Court but later on petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Sessions Judge. The revision petition was filed before the Sessions Judge and vide order dated 24.9.2011 passed by Sh. C.L. Mohal, Additonal Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, the revision petition was dismissed.
4. Feeling dissatisfied with the said judgment/order dated 4.11.2009 passed by Sh. Surya Chander Kant, JMIC, Jagadhri, vide which the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and order of reversional Court dated 24.9.2011 referred to above, have been challenged in the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that additional accused can be summoned only in case the evidence on the file is sufficient to convict them for the offence for which they have been summoned. To support this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon authorities reported as Mohd. Shafi vs. Mohd. Rafiq and another 2007 (2) RCR (Cri) 762, Ram Singh and others vs. Ram Niwas and another 2009 (3) RCR (Cri) 501, Usha Mehta vs. State of Punjab and another 2009 (2) RCR (Cri) 220 and Gurmeet Kaur vs. State of Punjab and another 2010 (1) RCR (Cri) 195.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that complainant has executed an affidavit dated 7.4.2007 Annexure P-2, in which he has exonerated the present petitioners. There is no finding recorded by the trial Court that the evidence is sufficient to warrant conviction. So, it is submitted that both the impugned orders be set aside.
7. I have carefully considered the said submissions, but do not find any force in those submissions. The name of the petitioners find place in the FIR itself and specific part has been attributed to them as detailed in the FIR. The reliance of the petitioners is on the affidavit dated 7.4.2007 Annexure P-2. The execution of the said affidavit has been denied by the complainant. So, the validity of that affidavit can be adjudicated during the trial only. There is finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that complainant has been able to make out a case to put the petitioners on trial and that finding of fact cannot be lightly interfered, while dealing with power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. So far as the authorities in Mohd. Shafi''s case (Supra), Ram Singh''s case (Supra) Usha Mehta''s case (Supra) and Gurmeet Kaur''s case (Supra) are concerned, the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court have held that accused can be summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C., if the Court comes to the conclusion that evidence is sufficient to lead to ultimate conviction. Both the Courts below have appreciated this aspect of the case and reached to the conclusion that this is a fit case to summon the petitioners to stand trial as accused alongwith other co-accused. The name of all the petitioners find place in the FIR itself. Specific part has been attributed to them. The complainant while appearing in the Court also supported that version. So, it cannot be said that evidence on the file is not sufficient which may ultimately lead to conviction. Otherwise also, the concurrent finding of both the courts below cannot be lightly interfered in the present petition.
8. Consequently, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.
