Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) THE present petition lays challenge to the order dated 19.8.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul whereby the application filed by the complainant through public prosecutor for summoning Akhilesh, Vinod and Devender as additional accused in Criminal trial pertaining to FIR No. 282 dated 31.8.2010 for offence punishable under Sections 341, 363, 366A, 506, 376, 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered in Police Station, City Narnaul, District Mohindergarh, has been dismissed.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner (complainant) contends that the prosecutrix, daughter of the complainant specifically named Akhilesh, Vinod and Devender son of Hari Singh Yadav in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") as well as her evidence recorded during trial. It is further submitted that as per the statement of the prosecutrix, when the prosecutrix was kidnapped by Kapil son of Het Raj, Het Ram son of Shiv Dayal, Lalita wife of Het Ram, Bhupender son of Anil and Naval son of Raghbir from the place where she was working along with her mother and taken towards railway crossing, Akhilesh and others were present there and assured the remaining accused that they would take care of the things in their absence. She has further stated that the said persons (Akhilesh and others) had been visiting Netra at Gujarat and giving money to Kapil and assured him that they would take care of everything during stay of the prosecutrix with Kapil at Gujarat. It is argued with vehemence that in view of testimony of the prosecutrix, complicity of Akhilesh and others in the crime is proved beyond prima facie case, therefore, the trial court has grossly erred in dismissing the application for summoning these persons to face trial along with the accused already before the court as they had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused for commission of offence charged against them. Counsel for the contesting respondents has submitted that Kapil, his parents, Bhupender and Naval are facing trial before the Court of Sessions. The prosecutrix was allegedly about 18 years of age at the time of occurrence. As per case of the prosecution, she stayed with accused Kapil for about 10 months. The prosecutrix has levelled allegations of rape only against accused Kapil. The plea of the accused is that the prosecutrix performed marriage with Kapil. It is contended that the prosecutrix has sought to implicate a number of persons with the allegations that they visited the place of her stay with Kapil from time to time. However, she has not stated the date and month of their alleged visit. It is further contended that the prosecution has almost concluded its evidence as the prosecutrix was the 16th witness to be examined in the case out of 20 witnesses cited by the prosecution. It is further argued that as the trial has already progressed substantially and only few witnesses remain to be examined, in case the respondents are ordered to be summoned as additional accused, it would amount to de novo trial of the five persons already facing trial and exercise of discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in such like circumstances has been discouraged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Micheal Machado vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 75.
(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.;