SANDEEP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(P&H)-2019-9-387
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on September 03,2019

SANDEEP Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents




JUDGEMENT

HARI PAL VERMA,J. - (1.)Petitioner-Sandeep @ Sammu has filed the present revision petition impugning the order dtd. 7/4/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby on an application filed by the prosecution under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C, the petitioner has been summoned to face trial as an additional accused.
(2.)On 25/4/2017, while issuing notice of motion in the case, this Court passed the following order:-
"Counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the trial Court has summoned the petitioner to face trial along with accused Surender against whom allegations with regard to sexual assault on the prosecutrix have been levelled but there is no such plea raised by the prosecution that the petitioner also committed sexual assault upon the prosecutrix as the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was also present at the spot. Another submission made by counsel is that the trial Court has summoned the petitioner as an additional accused by holding that complicity of the proposed accused is prima facie made out whereas in view of the judgment passed by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 623 satisfaction to be recorded for summoning an additional accused is more than that of the prima facie case. In addition, it is argued that the trial Court has sought to secure presence of the petitioner through process of non-bailable warrants at the first instance without any summons being issued for his service or recording any satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding and is evading appearance in the Court. In this regard, reference has been made to judgment of Hon 'ble the Supreme Court Vikas Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 948.

Notice of motion for 19/7/2017.

In the meantime, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed."

(3.)Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present case was registered on the statement of the prosecutrix wherein she has made a statement that on 6/11/2016 at about 7.30 PM, she went to a shop for fetching shampoo and sugar, but while she was returning, three boys, namely, Surender son of Ami Chand, Sammu (the petitioner herein) and Lala, gripped her in the street and dragged her to an abandoned house. The co-accused Surender gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth and raped her. The co-accused i.e. the petitioner and Lala were present there. However, when her cousin Harish came there, all the three accused ran away from there and she was brought back to her house. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that after registration of aforesaid FIR, the case was duly investigated and the petitioner was found innocent. A bare perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, so recorded, does reflect that no role has been attributed to the petitioner as in what manner he has participated in the crime. The statement of the prosecutrix is completely vague. She has made allegation that all the three accused gripped her and dragged her towards an abandoned house, but in what manner she was gripped by the accused, is totally missing. Moreover, the other accused Surender against whom there are allegation of commission of rape, is already facing trial. There is no such material before the prosecution so as to seek summoning of the petitioner.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.