Sucha Ram Panch vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 25.09.2009 passed by the Trial Court whereby petitioner was ordered to be summoned to face the trial as an additional accused on an application moved by the prosecution u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ''Cr.P.C.''). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no allegation was levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. Name of the petitioner was not put in the column No. 2 at the time of presentation of the final report. It is only during trial that eye-witnesses had leveled allegations against the petitioner that he had conspired with his co-accused Gurmukh Singh and Mintu to commit the murder of Baljeet Kaur. However, Gurmukh Singh and Mintu, co-accused who had faced the trial have since been acquitted by the Trial Court. No appeal has been filed against the said judgment dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-4).

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

In the present case, perusal of the FIR as reproduced in the grounds of revision reveals that no allegation was leveled against the petitioner. In fact, the case of the complainant was that Gurmukh Singh and his friend Mintu had committed the murder of Baljeet Kaur and had thrown her dead body somewhere. During trial, prosecution moved an application for summoning the petitioner to face the trial as an additional accused. The said application was allowed vide the impugned order dated 25.09.2009. Annexure P-4 is the copy of the judgment passed by the Trial Court whereby Gurmukh Singh and Mintu who had faced the trial had been acquitted. The case was based on circumstantial evidence. It has been observed by the Trial Court that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive behind the occurrence. It has also been observed by the Trial Court that even if it is presumed that accused or Sucha Singh or the petitioner wanted to usurp the money belonging to Gurmeet Singh, then no purpose would have been served by killing his wife Baljeet Kaur. Thus, the petitioner had been summoned by the Trial Court to face the trial on an allegation that he had conspired with his co-accused to commit the murder of deceased Baljeet Kaur. Since the main accused had been acquitted by the Trial Court and so far no appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Trial Court dated 27.10.2010, impugned order is liable to be quashed. Further the Trial Court, while acquitting the co-accused of the petitioner has held that no purpose would have been served by killing Baljeet Kaur as the money belonging to Gurmeet Singh was to be usurped by the accused. Accordingly this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.09.2009 in is set aside.