The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, in her impugned order dated 6.10.2009 has noticed that in the entire statement of the complainant-petitioner (PW1) there was no allegation about causing specific injuries and about specific role attributed to respondents-2 to 10. The petitioner had deposed that Sandeep and Hardeep sons of Bala, Rajpal son of Risala, Ramesh son of Manga, Santosh wife of Bala, Sudesh wife of Satpal and Sona wife of Hoshiara armed with Lathis had alighted from the tractor. The petitioner, while mentioning the names of the said persons, had also given the names of others who are facing trial and had been charge sheeted (challaned) by the Police. It was noticed that the petitioner further deposed that Ram Mehar son of Sardara raised a ‘lalkara’ and he (Ram Mehar), Bala and Kala fired shots from their guns and the remaining accused attacked them with their respective weapons. The petitioner further deposed that Kuldeep was having a lathi. It was observed that except this line that the assailants attacked them, there was no evidence attributing specific injuries and roles to the persons who were sought to be summoned. The name of Sonu son of Ram Mehar did not find a mention in the FIR even. A perusal of the report under Section 173 CrPC revealed that during investigation, these persons were found to be not present at the time of the occurrence and that is why they were not challaned. Therefore, it was observed that it was wrong to say on the part of the prosecution that the
