M.M.PUNCHHI, J. - (1.) THIS is a composite petition under Section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Two orders of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat dated 1.2.1982 and 18,.8.1982 have been challenged herein. These came to be passed in following circumstances.
(2.) THE broad allegations of the prosecution were that at Sonepat there were two grounds (groups) of truck operators warring with each other to capture the elected offices of the truck union, On 28.3.1981 a fight took place between the two rival groups at Ganaur in which Rajbir and Raj Kumar and a few others persons led by Jaga Ram, were injured. The said Rajbir and Raj Kumar were brought to civil Hospital, Sonepat, the same day for treatment. The news of the same caught fire. Quite a few truck operators arrived at the hospital at about 7.00 p.m. Amongst those who arrived were Lal Chand and his son Satinder Kumar, the present respondents. 'Along with them allegedly there were Shamsher, the nephew of Lal Chand. Lal Chand and Satinder Kumar respondents entered the emergency room where Rajbir and Raj Kumar were lying admitted or treatment. It is then that Lal Chand respondent is alleged to have fired a gun shot at Rajbir, P.W. who was saved but the pellets hit Dharam Pal P.W. Similarly Satinder Kumar respondent is alleged to but he have fired a gun shot at Raj Kumar who too was saved pellets hit Smt. Nirmala P.W. In the meantime Dev Raj petitioner came out of emergency ward due to fear and he was dealt with by Shamsher accused who was standing cut side the emergency ward, by firing a gunshot at him. He too was saved as he had hidden himself behind a tree, but pellets hit Amit Chand and Kewal Singh P.Ws. These all intended victims got themselves saved, but the pellet injuries are alleged to have been received by others. All the three accused then ran away from there in a car. Where the matters was reported to the police and investigation was conducted thereon a final report was filed before the committing Magistrate. Lal Chand and Satinder Kumar respondents were shown in column No. 2. The challan alone was presented against Shamsher accused. The learned Magistrate then committed Shamsher to stand his trial before the Court of session, but all the same referred the other two accused as well to the Court of session. When the matter was put up before the Additional Sessions Judge, the point raised there was where Lal Chand and Satinder Kumar accused respondents be discharged or should they be put up for trial along with other co-accused Shamsher. For the purpose Dev Raj petitioner had been filed an application for putting the aforesaid two accused-respondent on trial. The learned Judge vide order dated 1.2.1982 discharged the accused-respondents by observing as follows : "-- Thus keeping in view all this, at this stage it cannot be said that the police has wrongly shown these two accused in column No. 2 of the challan. It appears that the police has not rightly challaned them because the story against these two accused does not appear to be probable and natural--Provisions section 319, of Cr.P.C. are not attracted in this case at this stage because the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has not yet been "recorded in this Court. The case is still a charge stage.---To Conclude, I am of the opinion that prima facie, no case is made out against Lal Chand and Satinder accused. They are accordingly discharged. The application of Dev Raj applicant is also dismissed."
(3.) SHAMSHER accused alone had to face charge under section 307 of the Code of Criminal procedure and under section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. It has now been stated at the bar before me that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after due trial, ultimately, acquitted the said accused.;