Davinder Singh @ Kala v. State Of Punjab
!"#"
$%&'(&(
% )* ( +++
!
"
# ! $% & '''''
++, ( -. ! " #
$ % &'
( ) ( '** +$
$++'
' %+ ! , " + + -. / 0
1 2 ' %+ 13 .,( ,$+ % ,'$( 4+ ) (+*" + %% 5
6 2( % 78 * 5 (4 % 79$ ) 5% +* % 78 "$5 +*$:
3) % 5 $$ 5 ;$$ ' (4 % 79$ ) 5% $+ <'') % (++' $ 5 * #+
-./ 0 1 2+ #=', #+" 8 4 / 0 ! 2(,$+ %,'$(4+) (5$+ 5++ #=', 4' +' (*' %+ 6 , ) % (<' 5+ 5
-.(5+( % 78 * "$5 54 % 79$ ) 5 % $+ <'5$ "$ ' ++$' ( ' %+2 , 5 % 78
) 5% 54 % 79$5$+ $'* / .. 0 (* ,;3) % 5+ ( 5+5$ % 78 *"$5 (4 % 79$ +'
$ *"5 4 % 79$ ) 5% $+ "$5 *+ + * !+ #=',0 * ($+' %+ ! , 5 * + ) % 5 5$ % 78 "$5 (4 % 79$ +'
$ *"5 ( ("4 % 7 9$ ) 5% >+>"$5*+ ) * ,;3<' ) '% (+*"'**
! "#
$%&'
() (5+ *'
$ +'$ + " $$*$+ + # -.( <') % 5$5$ ' (<' ) % * 5$ ,; $ *"5 5 $$ 5( ) 5% * "$5*+ ?5( $+ ' %+ ! , **5* 55 4 %
+'
$ *) % "5 4 % 79$ ) 5% >+>"$5*+ 5$5$ 5 ' #
$$(+ 5$<' <' 5+ " + +$$"' % 78 #<' * '"$ ** * ' ( $ *$+ +"'$ '(+'$$(5+ * +$ +(5+5$<' <' ?( (+ *'
5$"$ " !
$ +'$ %5$$+*$ + " '$ * -. " +*$% % 5 "' + + $ <' 3,;) % $* * ' %+6 , $ ' ( $"'** +$
$
++' " +$ ' ( (+
5$"$" * . $ +'$ ) + '(5'$ " %+ ! , * '+ "$5
!
"
# $
$
$%
& ' ( ?:"$%'*' . $5' '*" <'
* 5 *+$" <'
* +' "$5 .
!"###$%&"'"(!?:"$%'*' . $ ' "11. The basic requirements for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the court from the evidence collected during trial or
in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused. 12.
But even then, what is conferred on the court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words the court may proceed against such person. The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the court to proceed against other persons".
In "Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab, 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 647", the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "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.
of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial - therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different". 13.
A perusal of the aforementioned judgments would show that a prospective accused can be summoned even on the basis of the examinationin-chief and cross-examination as such is not required. However, what is required is that the Court records its satisfaction that there were reasonable prospects of the conviction of the accused sought to be summoned. Further, the degree of satisfaction required for summoning an accused must be more than that required for framing charges against the existing original accused. 14.
Coming back to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the present case is one of version and cross-version. As per the FIR got registered at the instance of Sohan Singh, Davinder Singh @ Kala (petitioner) and Bhagwan Singh gave injuries to Bahadar Singh while he was lying on the ground. The said version has been reiterated by Bahadar Singh in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, while deposing as PW-1, Bahadar Singh Stated that Davinder Singh @ Kala (petitioner) had caught hold of him by his wrist and then he (Davinder Singh @ Kala) and Bhagwn Singh raised lalkaras and gave fist blows on his (Bahadar Singh's) stomach. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
was moved by Bahadar Singh wherein he has stated that Davinder Singh @ Kala had caught hold of his waist and kick blows had been given by him (Davinder Singh @ Kala) and Bhagwan Singh in his (Bahadur Singh's) stomach. Quite apparently, the injured-Bahadar Singh had improved his version from stage to stage. Further, a perusal of the MLR (Annexure P-3) would reveal that there is only one lacerated wound on the parietal region which has been clearly attributed to co-accused Ravinder Singh @ Gogi.
ation of the petitioner cannot be ruled out and this Court cannot record a satisfaction that the petitioner has committed the offence for which he has been summoned to face Trial.
15.
In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find considerable merit in the present petition. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, stands quashed.
16.
The present petition is disposed of accordingly. ++ $/-0&', #
( #
)$ (
)$