Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ruldu Ram Alias Kashmir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 February, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
Criminal Misc. No. M-22767 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-22767 of 2009(O & M)
Date of decision:-12.02.2013
Ruldu Ram alias Kashmir Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.A.G. Punjab.
Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate
for respondents No.5 to 7.
MAHESH GROVER J.(Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for summoning of the record pertaining to DDR No.24 dated 03.6.2008, registered at Police Station Patran, District Patiala and to set aside the report made by respondent No.4 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further prayer has also been made to direct respondent No.3 to register the FIR against respondents No.5 to 7 for allegedly murdering the brother of the petitioner and to conduct proper investigation in the matter. Criminal Misc. No. M-22767 of 2009 -2-
The brother of the petitioner died on 02/03.6.2008. His body was found hanging with a piece of cloth around his neck, on a kikar tree. Another brother of the deceased namely Harjinder Singh approached the police with the information of the death of the deceased. The inquest proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated at his behest. The police looked into the matter and found that it was a case of suicide and not that of murder. Learned counsel for the petitioner with much vehemence contended that the procedure under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed. That apart he has stated that the body was hanging on kikar tree but no ligature mark was found on the neck of the deceased. He contended that the deceased was murdered by his nephews, who have been arrayed as respondents No.5 and 6 along with respondent No.7.
The prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.5 and 6 with reference to the Post Mortem Report has stated that the ligature mark was found on the neck of the deceased. For that purpose, relevant portion of the Post Mortem Report is extracted herein below :-
"Ligature mark of size 4.5 wide 13' encircling around the neck above thyroid cartilage with complete encircling the neck."Criminal Misc. No. M-22767 of 2009 -3-
He has further stated that the mothers of respondents No.5 and 6, who are sisters, have inherited the property of their fathers, which property was in fact clandestinely sold by the petitioner on the basis of forged documents. FIR in this regard was registered against him and this is the actual cause of filing the petition to implicate the respondents No.5 and 6. To the same effect are the arguments of learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
The argument of the petitioner right from the very beginning, has been the absence of any injury mark on the neck and this formed a persuasive factor for this Court to intervene (as is clear from the order dated 16.2.2012) but the same has been belied by the Post Mortem Report, which indicates complete injury on the neck-a result of hanging. The tongue of the deceased was found partly protruded and saliva was oozing out. No further injury mark was found on the person of the deceased.
In the given set of circumstances when the matter has been investigated by the senior official of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the conclusion that the deceased committed suicide and rejecting the allegations of the petitioner does not seem to be misplaced as these factors warrant no other inference, more particularly when nothing has been shown to this Court, which could suggest the death on account of murder. As noticed above, the solitary plea of the absence of the injuries on the Criminal Misc. No. M-22767 of 2009 -4- neck is a figment of imagination of the petitioner, who has not even cared to see the Post Mortem Report as was disclosed during the course of proceedings. The petition has been pending since last four years, without even a cursory attempt having been made by the petitioner to look at the Post Mortem Report, which would have unravelled the cause of death of the deceased.
There also seems to be some substance in the contention of learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6, who has stated that once confronted with the FIR of fradulently disposing of the property, inherited by the mothers of these respondents, the instant petition has been filed. The FIR against the petitioner was registered on 12.3.2009 and the instant proceedings were initiated soon thereafter. Further the Court does not find any ground to grant the prayer, which has been made in the instant petition for deeper investigation when the petitioner has projected an erroneous plea to the Court.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed with a costs of `50,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner to respondents No.5 and 6 as cost of litigation.
February 12, 2013 ( MAHESH GROVER ) Vijay Asija JUDGE