Jaswinder Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J Since identical issues are involved in the present cases, hence, the same are being decided by a common order with the consent of the parties. However, for the facilities of reference, the facts are being taken from CRM-M-38628-2023   titled   as  "Jaswinder   Singh   Versus   State   of   Haryana   and another".

¶1Relief Sought:- By way of filing the afore-said petitions, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal in criminal case bearing No.83, 2018, titled as "State vs. Jaspal Singh etc." in FIR No. 139, dated 29.06.2017, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 506 and 34 IPC, Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal whereby, a well reasoned order dated 11.11.2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.2-complainant has been set aside and petitioners have been summoned as additional accused to face trial with the accused who are already before the Court.

¶2Facts:- The facts as narrated in the FIR reads thus:- "Statement of Sh. Dilbhag Singh-son of Kali Ram caste Jat resident of Village Sinh Police station Cheeka District kaithal and age 26 years Mb. No. 7357645944. Stated, that I am resident of above said address and agriculturist by profession. We are having dispute of agriculture land with Dharam Singh etc. today dated

25.06.2017 , we reach over the compromise in the police station. Dated 27.06.2017 at about 7.00 P.M. we were working in our field after putting the motor in the tube well. In mean time my uncle Dharam Singh son of Sarda Ram, Gurpal Singh son of Dharam Singh, Jaspal Singh son of Dharam Singh, Amarjit Singh son of Sarda Ram, Jaswinder Singh son of Sarda Ram, Gurjant Singh son of Jaswinder Singh came on the spot. Amarjit Singh came with Tractor and other came on foot. Dhram Singh was armed with Lathi, Gurpal Singh was armed with Lathi, Jaspal was armed with Gandasi, Jaswinder Singh was armed with Lathi, Gurjant was armed with Gandasi. Amarjit Singh gave a Lalkara. catch them, we will teach a lesson for entering in the field, after this Dharam Singh give a Lathi blow on my right arm and Jaspal Singh attacked upon me with Gandasi and I raised my right hand to save me and Gandasi blow rest on my hand. In mean time Amarjit Singh and Gurpal Singh gave a Lathi blow, which hit on my right arm and I fell down and all of them started beating me with lathies. I shouted," Mar Diya" "Mar Diya", then my father kali Ram came from the house to rescue me and they also start beating my father with Lathis and Gandasi. Jaswinder Singh gave Lathi blow on the right hand of my father and thereafter, all assailants gave the Lathi and Gandasi blow to me and my father. We received many injuries. All assailants ran away from the spot with their respective weapons and threaten us to kill, if again we entered in said land. We reach at our home and we reach in hospital for treatment and I was referred to G.H kaithal. We are getting the treatment. These assailants have given the injuries to us without any reason. Legal action is to be taken against them,. I got recorded my statement, heard and found correct." 3' S ./issi"ns)- On .eha(# "# +e!i!i"ner(s))- =earned   counseti   for  the  petitioner(s$  has   contended  that   the i'pu2ned order dated "5.#5."#"3 (Anne6ure P-($ is 1ased upon conjectures and sur'ises.  ;here is no evidence to connect the petitioner(s$ with the atitie2ed offence.   9t is further contended that the potiice has investi2ated the 'atter thorou2hti% and found that the petitioners are innocent.  ;hereafter, the potiice has presented the report under +ection )53 Cr.P.C after 3eepin2 the petitioners in column No.2 but the learned Revisional Court has not considered the evidence and police report. On behalf of respondent-State as well as respondent No.2:- Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2-complainant has submitted that in the FIR, a specific role has been attributed to the petitioners.  The role attributed to the petitioner-Jaswinder Singh is that he gave lathi blow on the left elbow of the complainant and on the right arm of his father and petitioner-Amarjeet gave a lathi blow on the right arm of the complainant.  In view of the specific role attributed to the petitioners, they have rightly been summoned by the Revisional Court to face trial along-with the other accused. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

¶4Analysis:- The court's observations highlight the coherence and consistency of the complainant's testimony regarding the alleged assault by the proposed accused, Amarjeet and Jaswinder. The complainant's initial version clearly identifies both individuals at the scene, attributing specific roles and injuries to them, which is crucial for establishing their involvement in the incident. In his testimony as PW1, the complainant reiterated these allegations, detailing how Jaswinder struck him with a Lathi on his left elbow and Amarjeet did the same on his right arm. Additionally, it was noted that Jaswinder also attacked Kali Ram, the complainant's father, with a Lathi blow to his right arm. The medical evidence supports these claims: the complainant had a bruise on his left forearm corresponding to Jaswinder's alleged blow, while Kali Ram's injury—a fracture of the third metacarpal of his right hand—aligns with the attack attributed to 7aswinder. ;he court e'phasi@ed that these injuries are corro1orated 1% 'edicati records, reinforcin2 the credi1itiit% of the co'ptiainant>s account. ;his thorou2h e6a'ination of 1oth testi'oniati and 'edicati evidence ititiustrates a stron2 foundation for the atitie2ations 'ade a2ainst A'arjeet and 7aswinder. ;he Constitution Bench of the +upre'e Court in <$ardee+ Singh *s' S!a!e "# 3 n4a. and "!hers&5 (2010) 3 SCC 92, whitie ititiu'inatin2 the scope of +ection 3)* Cr.PC, 0aid down that:- <57. Thus, the application of the provisions of +ection 3)* CrPC, at the stage of inquiry is to be understood in its correct perspective. The power under +ection 3)* CrPC can be exercised only on the basis of the evidence adduced before the court during a trial. So far as its application during the course of inquiry is concerned, it remains limited as referred to herein above, adding a person as an accused, whose name has been mentioned in Column 2 of the charge-sheet or any other person who might be an accomplice." XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX <105. Power under +ection 3)* CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised 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.

¶106Thus, 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 +ection 3)* CrPC. In +ection 3)*  CrPC 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 +ection 3)* CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused." 9n $ardee+ Singh (supra$, the +upre'e Court etio4uentti% hetid that the word <evidenceA in +ection 3)* CrPC has to 1e 1roadti% understood and thus 'ateriatis which have co'e 1efore the Court, in course of en4uir%, can 1e used for (i$ corro1oration of evidence recorded 1% Court after co''ence'ent of tria0B (ii$ for e6ercise of power under +ection 3)* Cr.P.C.B and (iii$ atiso to add an accused whose na'e is shown in cotiu'n no." of the char2esheet. 9n <S 6h+a( Singh 7haira *s' S!a!e "# 3 n4a.&, (2023) 1 SCC 289 , the +upre'e Court succinctti% e6ptiained the powers 1estowed on the Court under +ection 3)* CrPC and rutied that:-<15. At the outset, having noted the provision, it is amply clear that the power bestowed on the Court is to the effect that in the course of an inquiry into, or trial of an offence, based on the evidence tendered before the Court, if it appears to the Court that such evidence points to any person other than the accused who are being tried before the Court to have committed any offence and such accused has been excluded in the charge sheet or in the process of trial till such time could still be summoned and tried together with the accused for the offence which appears to have been committed by such persons summoned as additional accused." ;he   Constitution   Bench   refreshed   the   2uidetiines   which,   the co'petent court, 'ust fotitiow whitie e6ercisin2 powers under +ection 3)* CrPC and further rutied that:-

(i) if the competent court finds evidence or if application under +ection 3)* Cr.P.C. is filed, regarding involvement of any other person in committing the offence based on evidence "recorded at any stage in the trial" before passing of the order on acquittal or sentence, it shall pause the trial at that stage and the Court shall proceed to decide the fate of the application under +ection 3)* Cr.P.C.;

(ii) if the Court decides to summon an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., such summoning order shall be passed before proceeding further with the trial in the main case and depending upon the stage at which the order is passed, the Trial Court shall apply its mind to the fact as to whether such summoned accused is to be tried along with other accused or separately; and

(iii) if the power under +ection 3)*  Cr.P.C. is not invoked or exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is a split-up case, such power can be invoked or exercised only if there is evidence to that effect, pointing to the involvement of the additional accused to be summoned in the spilt-up (bifurcated trial). After anati%@in2 the dicta of the Constitution Benches in $ardee+ Singh (supra$ and S 6h+a( Singh 7haira (supra$, the +upre'e Court in J hr *' 7ari/5 2023 SCC On9ine SC 181, une4uivocatiti% hetid that:- <17. It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the cited decisions that power of summoning under +ection 3)* Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a prima facie case is sine qua non to summon an additional accused. We may hasten to add that with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and in conformity with the binding judicial dictums referred to above, the procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial court must evaluate the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material is, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those  who are already facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be invoked." The Constitution Benches in Hardeep Singh (supra) and Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra) have cautioned that power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only, in those cases, where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test as noticed above 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. It is imperative to add here that with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and in conformity with the binding judicial dictums referred to above. The procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the summoning of a person, at the very threshold of the trial, may be discouraged and the trial court must evaluate the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material, more or less, carry the same weight and value, as has been testified against those who are already facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be invoked.

¶5Decision:- In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has passed the impugned order 27.07.2023 (Annexure P-5)  rightly and in accordance with law, which needs no interference of this Court. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed and impugned order dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide which the petitioners have been summoned to face trial along-with the accused, is, hereby, upheld. Pending criminal misc. application, if any, shall disposed off. Interim order passed by this Court stands vacated. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)

28.10.2024        JUDGE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 204-I CRM-M-38628-2023 (O&M) DECIDED ON:28.10.2024 JASWINDER SINGH …..PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS AND 204/2 CRM-M-51983-2023 (O&M) AMARJEET SINGH @ AMARJEET ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL. Present: Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-38628-2023). Mr. Ajay Kumar Rana, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-51983-2023). Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Ms. Gursimran Walia, Advocate for respondent No.2-Dilbagh Singh.