Indra Chand vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Churu (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘trial court’) in Sessions Case No.26/2011 titled as State vs. Sameer & Ors., whereby the

application preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for summoning four additional accused respondent Nos.2 to 5

to face the trial along with other accused persons has been dismissed.

The trial court after analyzing the material available on record and statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded till the date of passing of the

impugned order has specifically observed that two prosecution witnesses PW-22 Sumitra and PW-23 Chunni Devi have not named the respondent

Nos.2 to 5 as assailants in their police statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The trial court has also observed that other eye-witnesses

namely PW-1 Shanker Lal, PW-2-Dilawar, PW-3 Soyal, PW-4 Irfan @ Pada PW-5 Asif @ Montu and PW-18 Ravindra Ranva have not named the

respondent Nos.2 to 5 as assailants, rather they have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. The trial court has further observed that

when the other eye-witnesses have not named the respondent Nos.2 to 5 as assailants and PW-22 Sumitra and PW-23 Chunni Devi have also not

named in their police statements during the course of investigation, it is clear that in their court statements, they have named the respondent Nos.2 to 5

as assailants deliberately. The trial court is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent Nos.2 to 5 cannot be summoned

as accused to face the trial along with other accused persons.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned order as well as carefully scrutinizing the record of the case,

I am of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the order as no evidence to summon the respondent Nos.2 to 5 as

accused is available on record.

Hence, this criminal revision is dismissed.