However, after investigation, only 3 persons, namely, Vikram Gilla, Gurmit Singh and Sunil Kumar, were charge sheeted.
The background aspects, so far relevant for the present purpose, companyld be numbericed, in brief, as follows 3.1 The prosecution case is that on 29.08.2013, the appellant accompanied by his father, brother and other associates, proceeded to reclaim possession of their land from the erstwhile tenants in companypliance with the directions issued by the Court of Assistant Collector Grade I that on reaching the site at about 330 p.m., they found that the companycerned revenue officers were number present and while they were making their way back to the village in search of the revenue officers, 3 4 cars intercepted them and about 10 12 persons emerged from the said vehicles, some of them being the alleged tenants, who were armed with pistols, rifles, swords, dangs, sotas, and 12 bore gun and that after a heated exchange of words, the appellant, his family members and their associates were attacked by the accused which resulted in the demise of the appellants father and brother while the others sustained varying injuries with the appellant receiving three bullet injuries.
In its impugned order dated 24.07.2014, the Trial Court referred to certain inconsistencies in the testimony of the appellant as companypared to his statement under Section 161 CrPC and the FIR and found numbercase for summoning 7 of the aforesaid persons but companysidered it just and proper to summon Sonu son of Jaipal, who had allegedly fired three shots from his firearm, which hit the appellant.
Hence, it was submitted that there was sufficient material on record to summon all the aforesaid persons to face the trial in this case.
3.2 For the incident in question, FIR came to be filed against 11 persons for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 341, 148 and 149 IPC as also Sections 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.
2 and 3, Krishan Dev and Vikas son of Krishan Dev.
Then all the accused started indiscriminating firing with their revolver, 12 bore gun and pistols and the fires hit with the vehicles, Mahi Ram, Budh Ram, my father and Sham Lal our servant.
3.3 In trial, the appellant was examined by the prosecution as PW 1, who asserted in relation to the incident in question, inter alia, as under .After alighting from the Car Vikas raised Alarm that they be taught lesson for taking possession of their land.
Then my brother Sandeep alighted from the Jeep and Vikram with his rifle fired two shots at him which hit on the left side of his chest and waist.
Then accused tried to run away on their vehicles but Innova did number start and they left the Innova then along with 12 bore rifle and ran away from the spot in another vehicles sic 3.4 In his cross examination, the appellant deposed that Krishan Dev, Vikas, Sonu, Rajan, Mukesh Jungli, Devinder Veeru, Surinder Mahal and Pirthi Raj were declared innocent after investigation by the police, but volunteered to state that they were wrongly declared innocent.
Then Sonu fired three shots from his revolver out of which two fires on my chest near the heart and one near the left shoulder.
By the said order dated 24.07.2014 on the application under Section 319 CrPC, the Trial Court, while partly granting the prayer of the prosecution to summon one of the accused Sonu son of Jaipal to face the trial, has dismissed the prayer for summoning the other 7 persons namely, Krishan Dev, Vikash son of Krishan Dev, Rajan, Mukesh Jungli, Devinder Veeru, Surinder Mahal and Prithvi Raj.
Thereafter we raised Raula of MAR DITTA MAR DITTA.
Krishan again raised Lalkara and instigated Sonu why are you standing and asked him to kill all sons of Hanuman.
9 of 14.01.2014 on an application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure CrPC seeking summoning of additional accused persons to stand the trial.
Then Vikram fired from his rifle on my father which hit him.
2626 of 2014 whereby, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, has upheld the order dated 24.07.2014 as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka in S.C. No.
The High Court upheld the order of the Trial Court while observing as under In this case, statements of companyplainant and witnesses is same, which were recorded by the police during investigation.
Vikram again fired shot from his gun on my father which hit him on his waist.
Against the order aforesaid, the appellant filed a criminal revision petition, being CRR No.
3.5 Pending further cross examination of the appellant, an application under Section 319 CrPC was filed by the prosecution to summon the aforesaid 8 persons to face trial on the basis of the testimony of the appellant PW 1 , wherein, he had asserted that all of them were present at the crime scene and had assaulted and injured the appellant, his family members and associates on exhortation by Krishan Dev, which resulted in the demise of his father and brother.
Dinesh Maheshwari J. Leave Granted.
In this appeal, the companyplainant appellant has called in question the judgement and order dated 02.07.2018 in Criminal Revision Application No.
2.1 Signature Not Verified The sessions case aforesaid is pending trial for the offences under Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Sections 302, 307, 341, 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC and Sections 25, Date 2019.03.15 174138 IST Reason 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.
