Jasvir Singh and Another v. State of Punjab

J  ASGURPREET SINGH PURI  , J.

¶1Both the petitions are taken up together for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties  being inter-connected and arising out of the same FIR. CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -2

¶2On 31.07.2023, CRM-M-3378-2023 was directed to be heard alongwith Criminal Revision No.151 of 2023 and therefore, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of a common order.

¶3 Criminal Revision No.151 of 2023 has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby the petitioners have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C to face  trial for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act in FIR No. 76 dated 01.06.2021, registered at Police Station Sadar Kotkapura.

¶4 CRM-M-3378-2023 has been filed  by the same petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of  anticipatory  bail to the petitioners in the aforesaid FIR.

¶5The facts are being taken from  Criminal Revision No.151 of 2023.

¶6 FIR No. 76 dated 01.06.2021 was lodged on the basis of statement of Sukhwinder Kaur @ Guddi  wife of Nirmal Singh @ Chamba son of Gurnam Singh, resident of Dhilwan Kalan, Police Station Sadar, Kotkapura  by stating that  she is married to Nirmal Singh who is having  dispute with his brothers Karam Singh, Jaswinder Singh (Petitioner), Jasvir Singh (Petitioner) and his father Gurnam Singh regarding partition of land/property and they collectively forcefully restrained them  from irrigating their fields from water channel. On

31.05.2021 at about 5.00 P.M, she alongwith her husband Nirmal Singh  and her son Harjot Singh arrived at their field  for irrigating the land as  per their turn. Then Karam Singh who was armed with .32 bore revolver, Jasvir Singh (Petitioner) armed with .12 double barrel gun and Jaswinder Singh (Petitioner) who was riding on a scooter and her father-in-law Gurnam Singh arrived at the CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -3 spot  on a c1c"e. 6hereafter, Kara! Singh fired  on the! with his revo"ver which hit   near the "eft ear of her hus and and then  the second ti!e he was hit on his right shou"der and he co""apsed on the ground. 6hereafter, he again fired three shots fro! his revo"ver at the! which hit the chest of her son <arjot Singh. So!e !ore cartridges were ta%en  1 hi! fro! 3aswinder Singh 9Petitioner: and he again "oaded his revo"ver and  fired on her  son which hit on nec% and "eft hand of her son and he a"so co""apsed on the ground and thereafter, the1 f"ed awa1. 6he hus and of the co!p"ainant na!e"1, /ir!a" Singh died on the spot, whereas her son <arjot Singh was injured due to gun shots and her son fro! his !o i"e ca""ed one of  their re"ative  na!e"1, At!a Singh 8hi""on son of Aj!er Singh 8hi""on who arrived a"ongwith his son na!e"1, Gur!u%h Singh. <er son <arjot Singh was ta%en to the hospita" thereafter.  6rans"ated version of the aforesaid &'R as has  een attached  with the petition as Anne=ure P-$  is reproduced as under:- "Statement of Sukhwinder Kaur @ Guddi wife of Nirmal Singh @ Chamba son of Gurnam Singh, resident of Village Dhilwan Kalan, Police Station Sadar, Kotkapura, aged about 52 years. Stated that I am residing at above noted address. I am a housewife. My marriage took place about 30/32 years back with said Nirmal Singh @ Chamba. I have got three daughters & one son Harjot Singh. My two daughters are married, while one daughter & son are still unmarried. My husband Nirmal Singh was having dispute with his brothers Karam Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Jasvir Singh & his father Gurnam Singh regarding partition of landed property, as my deor & father in law collectively restrain us from irrigating our fields from water channel and try to divert the irrigation water to their water channel out of the turn in forcible manner. Today, at about 5.00 P.M., when I alongwith my husband Nirmal Singh & my son Harjot Singh arrived at our field in order to irrigate the land as per our turn, which comes CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -, after Karam Singh and Jasvinder Singh, Jasvir Singh have turn after ours. I, my husband Nirmal Singh & my son Harjot Singh were diverting the water for our field, so that we may not have any problem in getting irrigation water, when my deors came from village Dhilwan side. Karam Singh was armed with .32 bore revolver, while Jasvir Singh armed with .12 bore double barrel gun & Jaswinder Singh was riding the said scooter, while my father in law Gurnam Singh arrived at the spot on a cycle. My father in law Gurnam Singh raised lalkara that Nirmal Singh & his family members may be taught a lesson for getting irrigation water before the scheduled time. On this, my deor Karam Singh fired on us with his revolver, which first fire hit near left ear of my husband Nirmal Singh and second one behind his right shoulder, on which, my husband collapsed in our field. My son Harjot Singh came forward to save his father, when Karam Singh fired three shots on us from his revolver, with a motive to kill us, which hit in chest of my son Harjot Singh. My deor Karam Singh fired all cartridges lying in his revolver and put the used cartridges in his pocket. Thereafter, he obtaining some more cartridges from Jaswinder Singh, loaded his revolver and fired on my son, which hit on neck & left hand of my son, resulting which, he collapsed on ground. I raised alarm, in which, said Karam Singh etc. fled away from the spot on their vehicles. My husband died at the spot, while my son, who was injured due to having received gun shots, gave a phone call from his Mobile to Atma Singh Dhillon son of Ajmer Singh Dhillon, resident of Village Dhilwan Kalan. On this, Atma Singh Dhillon & his son Gurmukh Singh arrived at the spot. We left Gurmukh Singh at the spot to protect the dead body of Nirmal Singh and then I alongwith Atma Singh Dhillon arranged conveyance and brought my son Harjot Singh to Civil Hospital, Kotkapura, who further referred him to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot. First aid was provided to my son at Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot and then he was further referred. Reason of grudge is that my deor & father in law use to get the irrigation water to their water channel out of the turn in forcible manner and restrain us from irrigating the fields. Due to this grudge, the said CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -5 persons, in connivance with each other, have fired on us, which resulted in death of my husband and also injured my son with gun shots. You have recorded my statement, read over & explained its contents, heard, which is correct. Due legal action may be taken in the matter. Sd/8Sukhwinder Kaur @ Guddi. Attested 8 Sd/8 Insp. Jagbir Singh 01/FR, S.H.O., Police Station Sadar, Kotkapura. ,. 6hereafter,  investigation was conducted  1 the po"ice  and during investigation  wives of  oth the petitioners gave an app"ication to the po"ice that their hus ands  are innocent and the1 were not present on the spot when the occurrence had ta%en p"ace and on the  asis of which the Superintendent of Po"ice, &arid%ot conducted an in>uir1  which has a"so  een attached a"ongwith the present petition as Anne=ure P-( wherein the Superintendent of Po"ice ca!e to the conc"usion that on the  asis of the state!ents  of the vi""agers, inspection of  --6? footage and reports of the !o i"e ca""s, it has  een found that  oth the present petitioners na!e"1, 3aswinder Singh and 3asvir Singh were not present at the spot at the ti!e of occurrence and  therefore, the1 are "ia "e to  e dec"ared innocent. 6he conc"usion report of the Superintendent of Po"ice is reproduced as under:- "Conclusion Report: The application filed by Bir Pal Kaur wife of Jasvir Singh, resident of village Matta, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot & Ranjit Kaur wife of Jaswinder Singh, resident of Village Dhilwan Kalan, Tehsil & District Faridkot, statements of applicants, so produced photo copy of bills for A.C., statement of Balwinder Singh son of Deep Chand son of Kalu Ram, resident of village Hari Nau, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot, Gursewak Singh son of Chhota Singh son of Nihal Singh, resident of village Matta, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot, Gurdit Singh son of Sukhdev Singh son of Ranjit Singh, resident of village Matta, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot, Jaswinder Singh son of CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -* Karnail Singh son of Sham Singh, resident of Kothey Mahal Wale, Village Dhilwan Kalan, Tehsil Kotkapura, Jasvir Singh son of Makhan Singh son of Daan Singh, resident of Kothey Darjian Wale, Village Dhilwan Kalan, Tehsil Kotkapura, joint statement of Balwant Singh, Panch, son of Nachhattar Singh, Dilbag Singh, Panch, son of Joginder Singh, Malwinder Singh, Panch, son of Balkaran Singh & Malkit Kaur, Sarpanch, wife of Binder Singh, residents of village Matta, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot, joint statement of Kulwant Singh, Nambardar, son of Dara Singh, resident of village Dhilwan Kalan, Tehsil Kotkapura, Makhan Singh, Ex. Panch, son of Ajmer Singh, resident of Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar, Village Dhilwan Kalan, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot, statement of Sukhwinder Kaur @ Guddi wife of Nirmal Singh, resident of Village Dhilwan Kalan, complainant of case & affidavit produced by Ranjit Singh @ Goli son of Beant Singh, resident of Village Dhilwan Kalan, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot in his statement, perusal of case file belonging to F.I.R. No. 76 dated 1.10.2021 U/s. 302, 307, 34 IРС, 27, Arms Act 8 Police Station Sadar, Kotkapura, Call detail report belonging to Mobile No.98889 65759 of Jaswinder Singh and Mobile No.98150 50658 of Jasvir Singh, for 31.5.2021, CCTV Camera recording of Hamara Petrol Pump, Village hari Nau for 31.5.2021 at 5.00 P.M & video, prepared with Mobile and spot examination, that Jaswinder Singh, Jasvir Singh & Karam Singh are leasing out their land since past three years and this year also, they have leased out their land in favour of Ranjit Singh @ Goli son of Beant Singh, resident of Village Dhilwan Kalan. At the time of said occurrence, which took place on

31.5.2021 at about 5.00 P.M, said Jaswinder Singh son of Gurnam Singh, resident of village Dhilwan Kalan is found in his house & shops, situated near his house from noon hours till about 6.00 P.M and Jasvir Singh son of Gurnam Singh, resident of village Dhilwan Kalan, presently residing at village Matta, his maternal grandparents' village since past about 17818 years, found having gone with Gursewak singh, Electrician, resident of village Matta to Kotkapura, where he purchased a 1.5 Ton A.C make Mitsubishi from National Enterprises, Rama Bazar, Kotkapura, District Faridkot vide CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -7 Bill No.362 dated 31.5.2021, then he arrived at Hamara H.P. Petrol Pump, Village Hari Nau at about 05:00 P.M and then at about 6.30 P.M, he is found present at village Matta. As regard presence of Jasvir Siongh with .12 bore gun, as got recorded by said Sukhwinder Kaur @ Guddi wife of Nirmal Singh, resident of Village Dhilwan Kalan, complainant of case in her statement, no fire is found having made by him. Then on 25.6.2021, Harjot Singh, son of the complainant, got recorded in his statement that Jasvir Singh made fires with his .12 bore gun with a motive of elimination. However no used cartridge found at the spot. It reveals from open as well as secret enquiry so far conducted by me and the evidence brought on case file that both Jasvir Singh son of Gurnam Singh son of Ajmer Singh, resident of Village Dhilwan Kalan, presently residing at Village Matta and Jaswinder Singh son of Gurnam Singh son of Ajmer Singh, resident of Village Dhilwan Kalan, are not found having present at the spot at the time of said occurrence, hence they are liable to be declared innocent in the instant case. If it is approved, a direction may be issued to the S.H.O, Police Station Sadar, Kotkapura for declaring said Jasvir Singh son of Gurnam Singh son of Ajmer Singh, resident of Village Dhilwan Kalan, presently residing at Village Matta and Jaswinder Singh son of Gurnam Singh son of Ajmer Singh, resident of Village Dhilwan Kalan, to be innocent in the instant case. Encl: Pen Drive. Sd/8 Superintendent of Police, P.B.I, Faridkot 29/7/2021" ..  Both the petitioners na!e"1, 3aswinder Singh and 3asvir Singh were therefore put in co"u!n /o.( and were not cha""aned  1 the po"ice. 6hereafter, the tria" co!!enced and the co!p"ainant who is wife of the deceased stepped into the witness  o= as P@-$ and whi"e deposing in CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -8 examination-in-chief, the complainant reiterated  the contents  which were so recorded in the FIR with  an  improvement that the petitioner  Jasvir Singh fired from his double barrel gun towards them with intention to kill but the shot did not   hit   them.   On   the   basis   of   the   aforesaid   statement   made   by   PW-1 complainant Sukhwinder Kaur, an application was moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C before the learned Sessions Judge for summoning both the present petitioners as additional accused since they have not only specifically been named in the FIR  but a role is also attributable to them   in the deposition of the complainant in the examination-in-chief. The learned Sessions   Judge   allowed   the   application   under   Section   319   Cr.P.C   and summoned the present petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C vide order dated 07.06.2022. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Sessions Judge  has  also been attached as Annexure P-10 with the present petition. Both the present petitioners assailed the aforesaid order passed by the learned Sessions Judge  by filing  Criminal Revision No. 1418 of 2022 before this Court and this Court vide  Annexure P-11 dated 12.07.2022 allowed the revision petition and after setting aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 319 Cr.P.C remanded the case back to the learned Sessions Judge   for passing a fresh order after applying the ratio laid down by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in  Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, 2014(3) SCC 92. Since the learned Sessions Judge did not record more than prima facie satisfaction on the basis of the evidence available on record,  the aforesaid order was set aside. Even the learned State counsel and  counsel for the complainant also recorded their no objection that in case the matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, then a CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -9 fresh decision can be taken  in accordance with law by applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh's  case (Supra).

¶9The learned Sessions Judge thereafter again passed the present impugned order  on 09.12.2022 whereby again both  the petitioners  have been summoned as additional accused. In this way, the Criminal Revision No.151 of 2023 has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated  09.12.2022 and CRM-M-3378-2023 has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶10Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   petitioners   has submitted that  the learned Sessions Judge while allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C has erred  in law and facts of the case  because when the investigation was  being carried out  by the police, then a detailed inquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police vide Annexure P-2 where it has been specifically concluded by the Superintendent of Police that  the petitioners were not present on the spot and  therefore, the aforesaid factum of alibi has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge while  deciding the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He while referring to the aforesaid  inquiry report submitted that  the  Superintendent  of Police  while inquiring  the case  recorded  the statements of the villagers and many other persons who stated before the police that the petitioners were not present on the spot. He submitted that  it has come in the inquiry that the petitioner Jasvir Singh is residing at village Matta, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot since past 17-18 years  which is the village of maternal grand-parents  of Jasvir Singh and he is practicing there as a doctor and they have a separate agricultural land from  that of the deceased Nirmal Singh for about last 15 years and their land has been leased out to one Ranjit CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -10 Singh @ Goli since about past three years.  It was so stated by the wife of the petitioner Jasvir Singh that on 31.05.2021 her husband left home at 11.45 A.M saying that he is going to Kotkapura for bringing AC and took one Gursewak Singh, Electrician  alongwith him and they purchased  one AC from Kotkapura vide bill No.362 dated  31.05.2021 and he came back home at  5.15 P.M and therefore, he has got no connection with the present offence. Similarly, the wife of petitioner Jaswinder Singh has stated that earlier her  in-laws' family were residing together but eventually they separated about 20 years back and  they shifted on the other side of the road and the deceased Nirmal Singh was having separate agricultural land for last 15 years and their  land is also leased out to one Ranjit Singh @ Goli since past  three years. She also stated to the police that on 31.05.2021 at about 5:00 P.M. her husband Jaswinder Singh was present at the gate outside the house and was gossiping with shopkeepers because her husband often used to gossip with  the shopkeepers till 6:30 P.M and therefore, he has no connection with the aforesaid FIR. He also submitted that it has come in the inquiry report of the Superintendent of Police that the petitioner Jasvir Singh came to one petrol pump namely,  Hamara Petrol Pump at Village Hari Nau   at about  5:00 P.M alongwith one Gursewak Singh, Electrician for getting the  fuel tank  of  his Activa  filled and got  the petrol filled  regarding which even screen shot of the CCTV camera was  given to the police.  The statement of  the aforesaid Gursewak Singh was also recorded by the police who stated that he remained with Jasvir Singh   till 5:30 P.M on that date. Similar statements of some of the villagers were also recorded who also stated that the petitioners were innocent. Learned counsel submitted that even as per the mobile location, petitioner Jasvir Singh at 5:00 P.M was present at Hamara CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -11 Petrol Pump, Village Hari Nau  and thereafter he was found at village Matta till

6.00 P.M. He submitted that on the basis  of the aforesaid evidence collected during the  investigation by the Superintendent of Police, the petitioners were not found at the spot  of occurrence during the time of occurrence and therefore, were rightly exonerated by the police.

¶11Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge  has not considered all the material available  on record and   merely  on   the  basis   of  the   statements   of   complainant,  son   of   the complainant and one other prosecution witness   summoned the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in  Brijendra  Singh and others Versus State of Rajasthan, 2017(7) SCC 706 to contend that when on the basis of investigation by the police it has been gathered  that the person sought to be summoned as an additional accused was not even present on the spot, then while applying the ratio of  judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in  Hardeep Singh's case (Supra), it cannot be said that more than prima  facie case is made out and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶12On the other hand,  learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab on instructions submitted that it is a case where both the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused on basis of more than  prima face  case regarding which satisfaction has been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order based upon  the witnesses who have deposed before the Court at the time of trial.

¶13Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that after the earlier order of summoning was set aside by this Court and the CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -12 case was remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, a fresh order has been passed   strictly   in   accordance   with   the   parameters   laid   down   by     the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in  Hardeep Singh's case (Supra). He submitted that initially the order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 319 Cr.P.C based upon the statement made by the complainant  in examination-in-chief. Thereafter when the case was remanded back to the learned Sessions  Judge for passing a fresh order in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh's case (Supra), then in the meantime two more witnesses were also examined by the prosecution. One witness was Harjot Singh who is the son of the complainant and who was also injured by fire shots at the place of occurrence which is clear from the FIR itself. He suffered very serious injuries of gun shots. The aforesaid Harjot Singh was examined as PW-2 and he also supported  the prosecution version and deposed in detail with regard to the incident which had occurred. Thereafter one more witness namely, Atma Singh was examined as PW-3. He also deposed before the Court and recorded his statement in detail with   regard to the aforesaid incident. On the basis of the examination-in-chief of both the aforesaid prosecution witnesses and that of the statement of complainant PW-1, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order by summoning the petitioners as additional accused. He submitted that there is no discrepancy or contradiction between the statements of the aforesaid witnesses except  when the complainant deposed before the Court she had reiterated the contents of the FIR but with a  slight improvement by deposing that the petitioner Jasvir Singh had also fired a shot from .12 bore gun which   did not hit anybody. He submitted that it was held by  Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh's case CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -13 (Supra)  that the Court while considering the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C is to see evidence  which came before the Court  at the time of trial or inquiry. He submitted that the investigation which was done by the police itself was based upon the plea of alibi  and could not have become a ground for dismissing the  application under Section 319 Cr.P.C because  the tesimony of the three prosecution witnesses at the time of trial was sufficient enough for the learned Sessions Judge to make more than  prima facie  opinion to have summoned the petitioners as additional accused. He also submitted that the incident had occurred at about 5.00 P.M on 31.05.2021 and FIR was lodged without any delay on 01.06.2021 at 00:32 hours and therefore, there could have been no manipulation by the complainant during that short period of time and she narrated the incident to the police  which has been so recorded in the FIR. He further submitted that although the complainant did not state in the complaint that the petitioner Jasvir Singh had also fired a shot from .12 bore gun but  the FIR itself is not an encyclopedia and at the time of deposition, the complainant has specifically stated that the petitioner Jasvir Singh had also fired but did not hit anybody. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petitions may be dismissed.

14.  I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15The learned Sessions Judge while considering the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning the present petitioners  as additional accused considered and referred to the statement made by the complainant namely, Sukhwinder Kaur @ Guddi as PW-1 and also statement of her son namely, Harjot Singh  as PW-2 and statement of Atma Singh  as PW-3 while deposing before the Court.  PW-1  Sukhwinder Kaur @ Guddi is the wife of the CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -14 deceased who was present on the spot, as per the FIR. PW-2 is  Harjot Singh who is the son of the complainant and the deceased who also received serious injuries from gun shot. PW-3 Atma Singh who is the relative of the aforesaid PW-1 and PW-2  who was called after the incident had taken place and who came alongwith  his son and thereafter took PW-2 Harjot Singh to the hospital. The FIR has been lodged  well in time and there does not seem to be any delay in the same. The learned Sessions Judge has given description  of the statements made by the aforesaid witnesses in the impugned order.  There  does not seem to be any material discrepancy between the aforesaid statements of the three prosecution witnesses nor  does it seem to be in contradiction of  the contents of the FIR. However,   so far as the allegations with regard to firing by the petitioner Jasvir Singh from his double barrel .12 gun  is concerned, the same came from the complainant  at the time when she deposed before the Court and not in the FIR. During the course of arguments, it has been so stated by the learned counsel for the parties that the aforesaid .12 bore gun is licenced weapon belonging to petitioner Jasvir Singh. However, the aforesaid .12 bore gun was never surrendered before the police for further investigation.

¶16Hon'ble  Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh's case (Supra) while laying down the law pertaining to the scope of  Section 319 Cr.P.C observed that apart from evidence recorded during trial,   any material that has been received by the Court after cognizance is taken  and before the trial commences can be utilised only for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the Court to invoke the power  under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The 'evidence' is thus limited to the evidence recorded during trial. Regarding  degree of satisfaction required for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C, it was held that though only a prima CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -15 facie case is to  e esta "ished fro! the evidence "ed  efore the -ourt not necessari"1 tested on the anvi" of   cross-e=a!ination it   re>uires    stronger evidence than !ere pro a i"it1 of his co!p"icit1. 6he test that has to  e app"ied is one which is !ore than pri!a facie  case as e=ercised at the ti!e of fra!ing of charge  ut short of satisfaction to an e=tent that the evidence, if goes unre utted wou"d "ead to conviction. 6he re"evant paragraphs of the aforesaid judg!ents are reproduced as under:- xxxx8xxxx8xxxx "80. In view of the discussion made and the conclusion drawn hereinabove, the answer to the aforesaid question posed is that apart from evidence recorded during trial, any material that has been received by the court after cognizance is taken and before the trial commences, can be utilised only for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the court to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The 'evidence' is thus, limited to the evidence recorded during trial. xxxx8xxxx8xxxx

¶99Thus, 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 Cross8Examination, 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 CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -1* the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused. xxxx8xxxx8xxxx

¶110We accordingly sum up our conclusions as follows: Question Nos.1 & III Q.1 What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised? AND Q.III Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded during trial? A. In Dharam Pal's case, the Constitution Bench has already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and the Sessions Judge need not wait till 'evidence' under Section 319 Cr.P.C. becomes available for summoning an additional accused.? Section 319 Cr.P.C., significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre8trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 Cr.P.C.; and under Section 398 Cr.P.C. are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 Cr.P.C. Materials coming before the Court in course of such enquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the charge8sheet. In view of the above position the word 'evidence' in Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -17 broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial. Question No. II Q.II Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. could only mean evidence tested by cross8 examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination8in8chief of the witness concerned? A. Considering the fact that under Section 319 Cr.P.C. a person against whom material is disclosed is only summoned to face the trial and in such an event under Section 319(4) Cr.P.C. the proceeding against such person is to commence from the stage of taking of cognizance, the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross8examination. Question No. IV Q.IV What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319 (1) Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted? A. Though under Section 319(4)(b) Cr.P.C. the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the Court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be the same as for ? framing a charge. The difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -18 accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial 8 therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different. Question No.V Q.V Does the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charges8sheeted or who have been discharged? A. A person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge8sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. However, in so far as an accused who has been discharged is concerned the requirement of Sections 300 and 398 Cr.P.C. has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh. The matters be placed before the appropriate Bench for final disposal in accordance with law explained hereinabove. $,. An argu!ent was raised  1 the "earned counse" for the petitioners that the Superintendent of Po"ice whi"e conducting the in>uir1 has e=onerated the petitioners  on the  asis of alibi and it was conc"uded  1 the Superintendent of Po"ice that the1 were not present on the spot  ased on state!ents of the vi""agers, the wives of the petitioners, --6? footage and !o i"e tower "ocation. 8uring the course of argu!ents, a >uer1 was raised to the "earned State counse" as to what is the distance  etween the  petro" pu!p where the --6? footage coverage  has  een considered  1 the Superintendent of Po"ice and the p"ace of occurrence to which he su !itted on instructions fro! the officer present in the -ourt that it is on"1 ,-. %!s. 6he "and   where the CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -1: occurrence has ta%en p"ace  e"ongs to a""  the  rothers. <owever,  the wives of the present petitioners have stated  efore the Superintendent of Po"ice that the "and was given on "ease to another person. )n the other hand, there are state!ents of three prosecution witnesses  efore the -ourt whi"e deposing efore the -ourt in e=a!ination-in-chief where 1 direct ro"es have  een attri uted to  oth the petitioners. So far as the petitioner 3asvir Singh is concerned,  ro"e attri uta "e to hi! is that he a"so ca!e on the spot a"ongwith .$(  dou "e  arre" gun and as per P@$ Su%hwinder Kaur, he fired fro! that.  So far as the petitioner 3aswinder Singh is concerned,  he  ca!e on scooter and as per &'R, he he"ped  co-accused Kara! Singh  1 providing hi! !ore cartridges and after "oading the revo"ver again,  Kara! Singh again fired  on  <arjot Singh which hit his  nec% and "eft hand and thereafter, he co""apsed on the ground. $.. 6he "earned Sessions 3udge whi"e considering the app"ication under Section *$2 -r.P.- discussed in detai" the aforesaid !ateria" avai"a "e efore the -ourt and ca!e to the conc"usion that on the  asis of  evidence rought  on record  !ore  than prima face case  is !ade out against  oth the petitioners. 6he operative part  of the i!pugned order is reproduced as under:- "13. Thus, prosecution has proved on record sufficient evidence that accused Jasveer Singh was also present on the spot and allegedly fired from his double barrel gun towards PW1 Sukhwinder Kaur @ Guddi complainant and others, with intention to kill them, but the shots did not hit them, whereas, accused Jaswinder Singh ferried them to the spot having live cartridges which were taken by accused Karam Singh for the purpose of reloading his revolver. The evidence brought on record is more than a prima facie case against Jaswinder Singh and Jasveer Singh and leads to the only conclusion that they were accompanying accused Karam Singh, when accused Karam Singh committed murder of his brother Nirmal Singh and injured CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -20 PW2 Harjot Singh, and accused Jasveer Singh also fired from his 12 bore double barrel gun.

¶14Accordingly, application moved by prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is allowed and accused Jaswinder Singh is ordered to be summoned for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act and accused Jasveer Singh is ordered to be summoned for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, 307 read with Section 34 IPC, 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act.

¶15Any observation while deciding this application shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and shall not construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case." $2.       Cearned counse" for the petitioners a"so referred to a judg!ent of <onA "e Supre!e -ourt in  #rijendra Singh!s "ase (Supra: to contend that when a p"ea of alibi has  een esta "ished during investigation  1 the po"ice, then the petitioners cou"d not have  een su!!oned as additiona" accused. 'n the aforesaid judg!ent  the p"ea of  alibi  was  ased upon the point that the appe""ants of that case  were present at a p"ace which was at a distance of $,0 %!s fro! the p"ace of occurrence at the ti!e the  present offence too% p"ace. As per the aforesaid judg!ent, the "earned Sessions 3udge was re>uired to consider the aforesaid !ateria" co""ected during investigation.  <owever, in the present case,  so far as the petitioner  3asvir Singh is concerned,  in the investigation it was found  that he has a separate agricu"tura"  "and fro! that  of the deceased /ir!a" Singh   ut he had "eased out the "and to one  Ranjit Singh 7 Go"i since "ast   three 1ears and a"so it was so stated  1 his wife that on *$.+0.(+($, 3asvir Singh "eft ho!e at $$.40 A.M  1 sa1ing that he is  going to Kot%apura for CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -21 purchasing AC and the same was purchased by him and he came back home at

5.15 P.M  and therefore, as per the investigation, he has got no connection with the present offence.  In the investigation, the Superintendent of Police also  referred to a fact that the aforesaid Jasvir Singh alongwith one Gursewak Singh, Electrician went to one petrol pump  namely,  Hamara Petrol Pump at Village Hari Nau   at about  5:00 P.M  for getting the  fuel tank  of  his Activa  filled and got  the petrol filled   and  in this regard  there is a screen shot of CCTV footage to show  that the petitioner Jasvir Singh   was at petrol pump at 5.00 P.M and the offence also occurred at the same time. It further came in the  investigation that as per the mobile location, petitioner Jasvir Singh was at  the aforesaid place till 6.00 P.M. However, during the course of arguments, learned State counsel  has stated on instructions from the officer present in the Court that the aforesaid petrol pump is only 7-8 kms. from the place of occurrence. So far as the petitioner  Jaswinder Singh   is   concerned,   according   to   the   statement   given   by   his   wife   during investigation, she also stated that they are living separately from  deceased Nirmal Singh  and the land was leased out to the same person namely,  Ranjit Singh @ Goli since past three years and on  31.05.2021 at about 5:00 P.M., Jaswinder Singh was present at the gate outside the house and was gossiping with shopkeepers till 6:30 P.M. The  house is in the same vicinity where the occurrence took place. Therefore even as per report of the Superintendent of Police, both the petitioners were not at extremely far place so as to arrive at a conclusion that it was impossible  for them to have reached the place of occurrence.

¶20The learned trial Court has allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning the present petitioners as additional accused on the basis of the statements made by the complainant  who is the wife of the deceased, son of the deceased and another witness who was called  on the spot after the incident. CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -22 These statements were made at the time of trial and the learned Sessions Judge finding more than prima facie case against the present petitioners came to the conclusion that the aforesaid statements leads to the  only conclusion that they were accompanying the accused Karam Singh when he committed  the murder of his brother Nirmal Singh. This Court is of the considered view that  the statements of the aforesaid persons at the time of trial   would outweigh the conclusions drawn by the Superintendent of Police during investigation for the purpose of considering the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C for arriving at a more than prima facie satisfaction. Therefore, no illegality or infirmity can be found in the impugned order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot.

¶21Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. CRM-M-3378-2023

¶22The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No. 76 dated  01.06.2021, under Sections 302, 307 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

¶23Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the  petitioners may be granted  anticipatory bail since they have been exonerated by the police and  therefore, their custodial interrogation is not required.

¶24Learned State counsel has submitted   that so far as the petitioner Jasvir  Singh is concerned,  as per the allegations and  also the statement made  by the wife of the deceased while deposing at the time of trial  the petitioner  Jasvir Singh used his double  barrel .12 bore gun and fired from the same but it did not hit anybody.  He submitted that the gun has still not been surrendered by him. He submitted that so far as the petitioner Jaswinder Singh is concerned, even as per the FIR itself, a direct role attributable to him was that he was having live CRR-151-2023(O&M)  and                        -23 cartridges which were supplied  by him to his brother who fired upon the son of the deceased which hit on  his neck and left hand  and he  collapsed on the ground being injured. He also submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required for the purpose of qualitative investigation and for elicitation of truth and has therefore prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

¶25After  hearing the learned counsel for the parties,  this Court is of the considered view that considering  the  aforesaid facts and circumstances that  a  .12 bore gun was  allegedly used by the petitioner Jasvir Singh and the cartridges of .32 bore revolver were allegedly supplied by the petitioner Jaswinder Singh to the co-accused on the spot and  also the arguments raised by the learned State counsel that for qualitative investigation and for the purpose of elicitation of truth, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required, carries weight and cannot be ignored.

¶26This Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶27Consequently, the present petition is hereby dismissed.

¶28However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and is meant for the purpose of deciding the present petition only. (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)

16.07.2024                 JUDGE

CRR-151-2023(O&M) and -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-151-2023(O&M) Date of decision: 16.07.2024 (I) Jasvir Singh and another ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondents (II) Jasvir Singh and another ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the complainant. ****