Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harmeet Singh Alias Sony And Others vs State Of Punjab on 21 January, 2010
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Revision No.166 of 2010
.....
Date of decision: 21.1.2010
Harmeet Singh alias Sony and others
.....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
....
Present: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Harmeet Singh alias Sony and others seeking quashing of the charges framed against them for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code ('IPC' - for short) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide impugned order dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure P-6).
FIR dated 12.2.2004 (Annexure-P.1) was registered at Police Station Samana for the offences under Sections 148, 326, 307, 325, 324, 323, 506/149 IPC on the complaint of Balwinder Singh son of Amar Singh. It was alleged by him that he is a resident of Village Kahangarh, Police Station Samana and does Amit Khanchi agriculture work. Electricity supply for 24 hours was sanctioned for 2013.09.16 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.166 of 2010 [2] his 'dera' and that of his brother Pritam Singh as also for the 'dera' of Devinder Singh whose 'dera' adjoined their 'deras'. The Electricity Board official were installing poles for providing electricity supply to his 'dera'. Two poles were to be installed in the fields of Kuldip Singh son of Nand Singh but said Kuldip Singh and his sons Harmit Singh alias Soni and Gurmit Singh were objecting to the installation of the poles. On 12.2.2004, a meeting of the Panchayat of both the parties was held and the matter was orally settled. However, the applications of both the parties were pending with the Police Station Samana. The complainant - Balwinder Singh and his brother Pritam Singh as also his nephew Jaswinder Singh son of Pritam Singh and Devinder Singh son of Khazan Singh and Iqbal Singh son of Daulat Ram were going to the Police Station Samana on their respective motorcycles and scooter for executing the compromise. At about 1.30 p.m., they reached in front of 'Dheha Basti' Samana, then at that time from their front side, from the side of Warencha turning, two white colour Maruti cars came; one was having registration No.PB-11M-0703 and the number of the second car could not be read. Both the cars pulled up there and stopped. The complainant on seeing them also stopped and ten-eleven persons got down from both the cars. Out of them, Kuldip Singh son of Nand Singh (petitioner No.5) was armed with a 'kirpan', Gurmit Singh son of Kuldip Singh (petitioner No.7) was armed with a 'dang', Harmit Singh alias Soni (petitioner No.1) was armed with a 'kirpan' residents of Dera Kahangarh; besides Rimpy, Deepu, Happy, Manga and three-four other persons were also with them Amit Khanchi 2013.09.16 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.166 of 2010 [3] whom the complainant did not know but he could identify them in case they came before him. They all were armed with 'dandas'. Kuldip Singh (petitioner No.5) raised a `lalkara' to teach the complainant side a lesson for installing the electricity poles in his land. Immediately on his saying so, Kuldip Singh inflicted a 'kirpan' blow on Pritam Singh, which the latter on his left temple and Deepu inflicted a 'danda' blow on the left eye of Pritam Singh. Happy inflicted a 'danda' blow on the left knee of Pritam Singh. Then the complainant came forward to rescue him (Pritam Singh) and then Harmit Singh alias Soni gave a 'kirpan' blow which hit him (complainant) on his forehead. In the meantime, Gurmit Singh inflicted a 'danda' blow on the left arm of the complainant and Rimpy inflicted a 'danda' blow on the waist of the complainant. Then Jaswinder Singh, nephew of the complainant came forward to rescue them, then Manga gave a 'danda' blow on his (Jaswinder Singh's) left hand and the other three-four persons beat him with their respective 'dandas'. The complainant side raised an alarm of 'maar ditta maar ditta' and then Iqbal Singh and Devinder Singh also raised shouts of `na-maaro, na-maaro' and many people gathered in the market. On seeing the gathering, all the assailants ran away from the spot with their respective weapons saying that they were rescued on that day but they would see them later on. In the meantime, Harjinder Singh a relative of the complainant reached at the spot and got the complainant side admitted in Civil Hospital, Samana for treatment where the doctor referred Pritam Singh to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala. The cause of the grudge was Amit Khanchi 2013.09.16 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.166 of 2010 [4] that Kuldip Singh etc. were restraining them from installing electricity poles in the fields due to which the above mentioned accused with the connivance of each other had inflicted injuries. The statement of the complainant was recorded by ASI Bakshish Singh, Police Station City Samana on 12.2.2004.
Leaned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the police report (challan) in the case was filed for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 IPC. It is submitted that in terms of the medico-legal report (Annexure-P.2) the injury on the head of the complainant was on the left temporal of the scalp for which x-ray had been advised. After x-ray examination, Dr.Karan Singh gave his report dated 16.2.2004 (Annexure-P.3) declaring injury No.1 of Pritam Singh based on the report of Rajendra Hospital, Patiala to be grievous in nature. Besides, injury No.3 was also declared grievous in nature by PGI, Chandigarh as per Annexure P-3. During trial of the case, Dr. Karan Singh appeared as PW-3 and he inter alia stated that he had given his opinion regarding head injury of Pritam Singh that possibility of head injury No.1 as per MLR may be dangerous or fatal to life could not be ruled out if emergency or medical care was not given at that time. His opinion was Ex.PW.3/12. In fact on 11.6.2004 (Annexure P-3) Dr. Karan Singh gave an opinion that as per x-ray report of Pritam Singh, he was having fracture of left lateral wide of orbit underlying injury No.1 as per MLR and hence injury No.1 was declared grievous in nature. Besides, as per medico-legal case summary report of P.G.I. Chandigarh regarding Injury No.3 showed Amit Khanchi 2013.09.16 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.166 of 2010 [5] VI + having, chonicdel deaf treatment with (PLVC). Injury No.3 was declared as grievous in nature by PGI-Chandigarh. As no x-ray etc. was advised for injury No.2 and it was only kept under observation, it was declared simple in nature. It is submitted that in view of the said deposition and report (Annexure P-3) of Dr. Karan Singh, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana, who was trying the case vide order dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure P-5) committed the case to the Court of Session as the statement of Dr. Karan Singh (PW-3) prima facie disclosed the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC which is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On the basis of the said report, it is submitted that the impugned charge-sheet dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure P-6) was framed in which wrong FIR No.118 was mentioned whereas it should have been FIR No.49. The petitioners then moved an application for correction of the FIR number, which was corrected vide order dated 20.11.2009 (Annexure P-7). It is submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case do not show that an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. In support of his contention, learned counsel cites Gurjant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 (1) RCR (Cr.) 319 and Sharda Nand v. State of Punjab, 2006 (4) RCR (Cr.) 906.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the leaned counsel for the petitioners and find no merit in the same. It may be noticed that in the incident that occurred on 12.2.2004, Kuldip Singh (petitioner No.5) is attributed the role of inflicting a 'kirpan' blow on the left temple of Pritam Amit Khanchi 2013.09.16 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.166 of 2010 [6] Singh. In the MLR (Annexure P-2) conducted by Dr. Karan Singh, the following injuries were found:-
"1. Incised wound 2.5 x 1 cm present over left temporal region of scalp, with bleeding present, advised X-ray of skull.
2. A defuse tender swelling 3.5 x 2.5 cm present over left patellar region of left knee.
3. A defuse swelling around left eyelid of left eye with blood oozing out of eye ball with sclera of eye ruptured and conjunctiva lacerated, AC full of blood hyphema present, referred to Opthology Department Rajindra Hospital Patiala for opinion and treatment."
Injury No.1 is an incised wound over the left temporal region of scalp. Dr. Karan Singh while giving his opinion on 11.6.2004 (Annexure P-3) opined that as per medico-legal x-ray report of Pritam Singh son of Amar Singh, resident of Kahangarh Samana was having fracture on left lateral wide of orbit underlying injury No.1 as per MLR, so injury No.1 was declared as grievous in nature. Thereafter, while appearing as PW-3 before the learned trial Magistrate it is stated that on the request of the investigating officer on 12.6.2004 he had given his opinion regarding head injury of Pritam Singh that possibility of head injury No.1 as per MLR may be dangerous or fatal to life could not be ruled out if emergency or medical care was not given at that time which report is Ex.PW.3/12. On 11.6.2004, he submitted x-ray report of skull of Pritam Singh Amit Khanchi 2013.09.16 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.166 of 2010 [7] which showed fracture of left parietal orbit underlying injury No.1 as per MLR and hence injury No.1 was declared grievous in nature. It may be noticed that Dr. Karan Singh (PW-3) was subjected to cross-examination; however, no cross-question was put to him regarding the said discrepancies, if any, in the report. In cross- examination he merely stated that there was no possibility of injuries No.2 and 3 being self-suffered or by way of fall on hard surface. It was also stated as wrong to suggest that he had prepared false MLRs. A party in support of its case is liable to cross-examine the witnesses of the other side and put questions to him in order to clear the particular point of ambiguity recorded in the examination in chief. In any case, now charges having been framed, the witnesses are liable to be re-summoned and it would be inappropriate for this Court now to go into and consider at this stage whether an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out or not, for this is now the domain of the learned trial Court. It would in fact be inappropriate to go into the said question at this stage and on the basis of material on record hold that the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out or not made out. The learned trial Court on the above referred evidence of Dr. Karan Singh (PW-3), has prima facie found an offence under Section 307 IPC to be made out and has committed the case to the Court of Session.
In the case of Gurjant Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it was held that the doctor in the said case had opined that injury No.2 on the person of the injured therein to be grievous with the added Amit Khanchi 2013.09.16 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.166 of 2010 [8] observation that the possibility of its having been dangerous to life could not be ruled out. The said observation, it was held, was not sufficient to prove that the injury therein was of such a nature that it would have proved fatal if timely medical aid was not rendered to the injured. Simply on the observations of the doctor that the said injury could possibly be dangerous to life, it was held, did not attract the application of Section 307 IPC. In Sharda Nand's case (supra) the facts of the case were entirely different. The doctor who medico-legally examined the injured in the said case found as many as seven injuries on his person which were all with fire arms and were on the right thigh and antero-medial aspect of right thigh, right costal margin 15 cm. from the xiphisternum, right costal margin, on the top of right shoulder, on the back of right scapula region and on the left wrist joint. The injuries were declared either simple or grievous in nature and injuries No.1 to 4 were declared simple and regarding injuries No. 5 and 6, it was opined that there was fracture of spine of scapula. These were declared grievous; besides injury No.7 on the left wrist joint was declared simple. For the other injuries there was no x-ray examination. It was a case of sudden fight and in the heat of passion. It was held that there was no intention to commit the murder and, therefore, it could at the most it could be said to be a case of attempt to commit culpable homicide which fell under Section 308 IPC. The said case was in an appeal after trial.
In the present case, it may be noticed that Dr. Karan Singh (PW-3) had submitted his report on 11.6.2004 declaring Amit Khanchi 2013.09.16 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.166 of 2010 [9] injury No.1 as per MLR to be grievous in nature. However, on the request of the investigating officer on 12.6.2004, he gave his opinion regarding injury on the person of Pritam Singh to the effect that possibility of head injury No.1 as per MLR may be dangerous or fatal to life could not be ruled out if emergency and medical care was not given at that time. The said report is Ex.PW.3/12. The report dated 12.6.2004 (Ex.P.3/12) has not been submitted in this Court. In any case, this would now more appropriately be considered and gone into by the trial Court after evidence has been led and further cross-examination, if any, which is to be conducted. It would be wholly improper to intervene in the trial of the case at this stage. After evidence has been led it would be open to the petitioner to show and establish whether a case against him is made out or not and in any case whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. This Court in exercise of its revision jurisdiction or inherent powers in a matter pending before the trial Court is to keep in mind the particular stage of the case before the lower Court when its jurisdiction is sought to be invoked and it would normally not interfere and instead would exercise restrain where the trial Court is seized of the case and evidence in part has been recorded and even cross-examination in part has been conducted. Ordinarily the criminal proceedings which are instituted against an accused are be tried and taken to their logical conclusion and this Court would not normally interfere at an interlocutory stage. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be improper to interfere at this stage.
Amit Khanchi2013.09.16 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.166 of 2010 [10]
For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider the case on the basis of evidence and material as is adduced before it.
(S.S. Saron) Judge January 21, 2010 *hsp*/amit Amit Khanchi 2013.09.16 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh