Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) REPLY of Shamsher Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Fatehabad, on behalf of respondent no. 1 filed in court is taken on record. One of the summoned prosecution witness has approached this court impugning the order dated 28.9.2011 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by him for recording his statement was rejected and an application filed by the Public Prosecutor for not examining the petitioner as one of the prosecution witness was accepted on the ground that he had been won over by the accused.
(2.) AT the time of issuance of notice of motion on 3.11.2011, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed: Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the petitioner for examining him as prosecution witness has been wrongly rejected by the learned court below opining that the prosecution is the master of the case. The stand taken by the prosecution is that the petitioner has been won over by the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are incorrect. In fact, he is to support the prosecution version as he is an eye witness to the occurrence. The brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 36 dated 10.2.2011 was registered on the complaint of Anil son of Jagdish, resident of Chandrawal, District Fatehabad, under Sections 323, 325, 302, 34 IPC at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad, on account of death of Sonu sister -in -law of the complainant (wife of elder brother of the complainant). It is alleged in the FIR that Dharambir son of Hari Singh along with 3 -4 other persons came in Toyota Innova and called father of the complainant to teach him a lesson, on account of his being a witness in a case against Hari Singh. The father of the complainant came out and asked Dharambir to behave properly, but he abused him. On hearing the noise, Sonu and other family members came out. Dharambir caught hold of Sonu and tried to put her in vehicle. Father of the complainant and Phul Singh tried to rescue her, however, Dharambir gave an iron rod blow on the head of Sonu. When the complainant tried to rescue her, Dharambir started his vehicle and put the same in the back gear and run over the father and sister -in -law of the complainant, driving the same at a high speed. Thereafter, all of them ran away from the spot.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that number of witnesses were cited in the challan presented in the court. The petitioner was one of them being an independent eye witness. When the evidence of the prosecution started on 28.9.2011, the petitioner had also been summoned to appear as a witness. On that day the prosecution filed an application claiming that the petitioner be left out from the list of witnesses as he had been won over by the accused. The petitioner finding that the other witnesses had been won over by the accused, filed application praying that he being an eye witness, who has been summoned by the court, should be examined as prosecution witness. Both the applications were considered by the learned court below. The application of the petitioner was rejected and the application of the public prosecutor was accepted.;