Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bakshish Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 17 September, 2013
Author: K.C. Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
Crl. Revision No. 2111 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No. 2111 of 2013.
Date of Decision : 17.09.2013.
Bakshish Singh and another ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI
Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Chandumajra, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab.
***
K.C. PURI, J.(ORAL)
Bakshish Singh son of Dalip Singh and Rajwant Singh son of Bakshish Singh have directed this revision against the order dated 18.04.2013 passed by Sh. K.C. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which these two revisionists have been summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No. 21 dated 04.04.2012 under Sections 302/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Nabha.
Briefly stated, Gurbaj Singh @ Baju son of Kashmir Singh and Money Sharma @ Manpreet Sharma son of Subhash Chand have been sent to stand trial for offence under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code by Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Nabha in respect of FIR No. 21 dated 04.04.2012.
The law was set in motion by recording the statement of Kanchan 2013.09.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revision No. 2111 of 2013 2 Kawaljit Kaur wife of Late Rajdeep Singh, who has stated that her marriage was solemnized in the year 2001 with Rajdeep Singh son of Balbir Singh. She had two children, a son Prabh Simran Singh aged 10 years and daughter Anmol Preet Kaur aged 08 years from this wedlock. Her husband was an agriculturist. On 18.03.2012 in the night at about 10.30 p.m., she came to know about the accident of her husband, who was at that time admitted in Columbia Hospital, Patiala by their relatives for treatment. He expired on 25.03.2012. In this connection, her uncle Anoop Singh got carried out the action under Section 174 Cr.P.C. On 04.04.2012, the Antim Ardas of her husband was held at Gurudwara Sahib, Chintanwala, where Surjit Singh son of Kartar Singh, resident of Chintanwala told her separately that on 18.03.2012 in the night at about 9/9.30 p.m. he was coming from Nabha towards Chintanwala in connection with his personal work. When he reached near the pavement of the canal ahead of Hadda rodi in the jurisdiction of village Chintanwala and stopped his motorcycle for urinating then in the light of motorcycle he saw that Gurbaj Singh @ Baju on the pavement of the canal was beating Rajdeep Singh with iron rod. At that time, Mani Sharma was also there with him. He turned back his motorcycle out of fear and went to his house. Rajdeep Singh has not died because of accident but has died due to beating given by Gurbaj Singh @ Baju and Mani Sharma. The reason of enmity is that her husband Rajdeep Singh keep on giving money on loan to Gurbaj Singh @ Baju, due to this reason Gurbaj Singh @ Baju and Mani Sharma have beaten her husband Rajdeep Singh and have murdered him.
Kanchan2013.09.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revision No. 2111 of 2013 3
After the registration of the case, investigation was conducted and statement of Surjit Singh was recorded, who in nut- shell support the case of complainant. He has stated that on 18.03.2012 he saw Gurbaj Singh @ Baju son of Kashmir Singh giving injury to Rajdeep Singh with iron rod and Mani Sharma was also present at that time. Thereafter the challan was presented against Gurbaj Singh @ Baju and Mani Sharma.
Charge against Gurbaj Singh and Mani Sharma was framed and during the course of trial, Surjit Singh made statement before the Court which is Annexure P-4. In Annexure P-4, Surjit Singh made similar version against Gurbaj Singh and Mani Sharma but made improvement to his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. to the effect that Bakshish Singh and other persons were also present. He has further stated that on the same night Mani Sharma, Bakshish Singh and Rajwant Singh came to his residence and asked him to open the gate of his house but out of fear, he did not open the door.
Thereafter the prosecution moved an application for summoning the present petitioner as additional accused and the learned trial court relying upon the statement of Surjit Singh, has summoned these two revisionists as additional accused to stand trial along with the other co-accused.
I have heard both the sides and have gone through the record of the case.
The initial case of the prosecution was that Rajdeep Singh died in an accident and proceeding under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated. However, according to the complainant, Surjit Singh Kanchan 2013.09.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revision No. 2111 of 2013 4 disclosed her on the day of Bhog Ceremony of Rajdeep Singh that in fact Gurbaj Singh @ Baju has given injury with iron rod to Rajdeep Singh on 18.03.2012 and at that time, Mani Sharma was also present. The name of present petitioner is not mention in the FIR nor the name of the present petitioner mentioned in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Surjit Singh. It is also not disputed during the course of argument that the name of the present petitioner does not figure anywhere in challan presented against other co-accused Gurbaj Singh @ Baju and Mani Sharma.
Surjit Singh had made a statement in the Court in which he has stated that Bakshish Singh was also present at the time of occurrence without imputing any specific attribution to him. The name of Rajwant Singh has been given by Surjit Singh in respect of coming to the house during the night when the occurrence has taken place.
Now the question arises whether under such circumstances Bakshish Singh and Rajwant Singh can be ordered to stand trial along with other co-accused.
It is settled law that the power given to the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised springly to dispense with the real justice. Summoning of a person as an additional accused is a serious matter and the Court can summon the person as an additional accused in case there are chances of ultimate conviction. Learned State counsel is fair enough to concede that except the statement of Surjit Singh made in the Court, there is no other evidence on the file in which the name of the present petition appears as an accused. It is an admitted case of the parties that Kanchan 2013.09.24 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Revision No. 2111 of 2013 5 name of the present petition does not figure in the statement of the complainant as well as in the statement of Surjit Singh, the material witness. In the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against Gurbaj Singh @ Baju and Mani Sharma, the name of the petitioner does not figure. It is highly unsafe to put the present petitioner to stand trial merely on the basis of the statement of Surjit Singh made in the Court. Otherwise also from the closed scrutiny of the statement of Surjit Singh made in the Court, it is revealed that he has mentioned that Bakshish Singh was also present. No attribution has been given to him even while appearing in the Court. The presence of Rajwant Singh is not mentioned at the time of occurrence by Surjit Singh in the Court. The part attributed to him is that he along with Bakshish Singh came to his house but he did not open the gate and he identified them from the damage portion of his gate. So, in these circumstances, the impugned order does not sustain the test of legal scrutiny and consequently the order of summoning the present petitioner as an additional accused vide impugned order dated 18.04.2013 stands set-aside.
Disposed of.
September 17, 2013. (K.C. PURI)
kanchan JUDGE
Kanchan
2013.09.24 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document