SANDEEP MEHTA J. - (1.) By way of this revision, the accused petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the order dated 6.8.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.41/2014 whereby, the learned trial court accepted the application filed by the prosecution under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and directed summoning the petitioners as additional accused in the case to face trial with the charge-sheeted accused.
(2.) Facts in brief are that the Sub Inspector P.S. Kalu recorded the Parcha Bayan of Mani Ram respondent No.2 complainant on 17.5.2014 while he was undergoing treatment at the CHC Kalu. Mani Ram stated in the said Parcha Bayan that he was sitting on a 'pipal stub' in the lane outside his house. His brothers Jagdish and Tola Ram were coming towards him at which point of time, Moda Ram, Jagmal, Bhera and three females having lathi in their hands came around and started assaulting him with a murderous intention. He attributed specific blows to Moda Ram, Bhera Ram and Jagmal stating that Moda Ram gave him an axe blow on his hand upon which he cried out in pain. On hearing his cries, his brothers Jagdish and Tola Ram intervened and they too were assaulted by lathis. On hearing their hue and cry, Lichman Ram and Loona Ram came around and saved the first informant and his brothers. On the basis of this Parcha Bayan, an F.I.R. No.43/2014 was registered at the P.S. Kalu and investigation commenced. The first informant Mani Ram repeated the same statement when he was examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. On a perusal of the said statement of Mani Ram, it is apparent that petitioners No.2 and 3 Kishna Ram and Bhagirath are not named as assailants therein. However, when the witnesses Jagdish and Tola Ram were examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 30.5.2014 i.e. after 13 days of the alleged incident, they alleged that Kishna Ram and Bhagirath also participated in the assault made upon the injured persons by lathis. Lichman Ram and Loona Ram, the two eye witnesses, who allegedly intervened to save the injured persons stated that the petitioners Kishna Ram and Bhagirath were also present at the scene of occurrence and were having axes in their hands. The three injured persons upon being medically examined were found to be having a large number of blunt weapon injuries on their person. The Investigating Officer, after conducting investigation, proceeded to file a charge-sheet only against Bhera Ram, Jagmal and Kasturi in the court of the learned Magistrate concerned. The case was committed for trial to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Bikaner and the matter was posted for arguments on charges. Before the arguments could be heard, the complainant moved an application for summoning the present petitioners as additional accused in the case which was allowed in the above terms. Hence, the accused petitioners have approached this court by way of the instant revision so as to assail the order passed by the trial Court.
(3.) Shri Choudhary, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that the petitioners Kishna Ram and Bhagirash are not named in the Parcha Bayan of the injured Mani Ram. Admittedly, Mani Ram as will as his two brothers, the injured i.e. Jagdish and Tola Ram were present in the hospital when the parcha bayan was recorded. Thus, he urged that there was no occasion whatsoever for these witnesses to have spared the petitioners Bhagirath and Kishna Ram while lodging the F.I.R. He contended that apparently the subsequent involvement of these two accused in the case is motivated and hence, the trial court should not have accepted the application filed by the complainant under Section 193 Cr.P.C. He further urged that the case had proceeded to the stage of consideration of charges and as such, the trial court should have waited for recording of the evidence and the application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. should not have been accepted in such a casual fashion and a premature stage because the learned Magistrate had taken active cognizance on receiving the charge-sheet and thus, relying upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case Shodan Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017(2) RLW 1565 (Raj.), Shri Choudhary implored the Court to set aside the impugned order.;