Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajbir Singh Sekhon vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 27 May, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-11550 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-11550 of 2013 (O &M)
Date of Decision:- 27.5.2013
Rajbir Singh Sekhon ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Vikram K.Chaudhri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.S.Klar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr.R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with
Mr.K.S.Nalwa, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr.S.S.Narula, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Jai Surya Jain, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The matrix of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, inter-alia, is that on the night intervening 20/21.4.2011, petitioner-complainant Rajbir Singh Sekhon son of Joginder Singh (for brevity "the complainant") had gone to search for his only son Gurkirat Singh alias Gikki. At about 12.45 AM (night), as soon as, he reached near Baba Rasoi Dhaba, Model Town in the area of CRM No. M-11550 of 2013 (O&M) 2 Jalandhar (place of occurrence), in the meantime, he noticed that his son was standing in the street along with Sukhdev Singh son of late Chanan Singh. Accused-respondents Amardeep Singh alias Sunny son of Mohan Singh Sachdeva, Ram Simran Singh Makkar son of late Surinder Singh Makkar, Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu son of Arvinder Singh and Amarpreet Singh Narula alias Prince Narula son of Gurinder Singh Narula were blatantly arguing with his son Gurkirat Singh. The complainant came forward to rescue his son and tried to stop them (accused), but in vain. Meanwhile, accused Amardeep Singh alias Sunny took out a revolver from his dub and started fighting with Gurkirat Singh. Accused Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu and Amarpreet Singh Narula @ Prince Narula raised a lalkara and exhorted accused Ram Simran Singh Makkar, as to what for he was looking at, whereupon he (Ram Simran Singh Makkar) also took out a revolver and fired a shot, which landed at the back and Gurkirat Singh felled on the ground after receipt of the fire arm injury. Thereafter, all the accused decamped from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons. The complainant, with the help of Vraun Gumbar son of Mool Chand Gumbar and Sukhdev Singh, removed Gurkirat Singh in an injured condition for treatment in his car to Satyam Hospital. As luck would have been, Gurkirat Singh died on the way on account of receipt of fire arm injury.
2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in his statement, which formed the basis of FIR, the complainant, inter-alia, claimed that all the accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy and committed the brutal murder of Gurkirat Singh CRM No. M-11550 of 2013 (O&M) 3 with their common intention. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the respondents-accused, vide FIR No.53 dated 21.4.2011 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act etc. by the police of Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar, in the manner depicted here-in-above.
3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan) (Annexure P2) against the accused. Sequelly, all the accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable u/ss 120-B and 302 read with section 120-B IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, by way of charge sheet dated 12.8.2011 (Annexure P3). Thereafter, the case was slated for evidence of prosecution. Subsequently, it was transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur for trial.
4. During the pendency of the case, the application dated 28.5.2012 (Annexure P4) filed on behalf of the prosecution u/s 311 Cr.PC was partly accepted. However, the request of prosecution to summon Dr.Asha Dhir etc. to prove the reports of CFSL and the Clerk of Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, to prove the date of expiry of arms licenses of the accused, was declined by the trial Judge with the following relatable observations, through the medium of order dated 6.7.2012 (Annexure P5):-
"11. So far as Mrs.Asha Dhir is concerned, her report is per-se admissible under Section 293 Cr.PC and it has so been pleaded by the prosecution in its application. Section 293 Cr.PC no doubt empowers the Court to summon and CRM No. M-11550 of 2013 (O&M) 4 examine any expert witness as to the subject matter of the report, but it is not clear why she is required to be summoned as a witness. Therefore, request of the prosecution to summon her as a witness is declined.
12. The occurrence in the present case took place on the intervening night of 20/21/4/2011. Arms licence of the accused were cancelled vide order dated 23.04.2011 and it is not shown how the said orders passed by the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar are relevant for the just decision of the case. Being so, the clerk of the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar to prove the said orders cannot be summoned."
5. Faced with this grave situation, the prosecution moved another application dated 17.8.2012 (Annexure P6), to summon Dr.Asha Dhir, Deputy Director Ballistic, Central Forensic Science Laboratory (for short "CFSL"), MHA Govt. of India, Dr. Sanjiv, Assistant Director (Bio) CFSL, Chandigarh to prove the reports of CFSL and the Clerk from the office of Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar to produce the orders (Annexures P10 to P12) and to prove that the licenses of the accused were already expired many months prior to the occurrence and their possession of fire arms was illegal. The trial Judge dismissed the application (Annexure P6) of the prosecution, by virtue of impugned order dated 13.3.2013 (Annexure P7).
6. Aggrieved thereby, now the petitioner-complainant has preferred the instant petition to quash the impugned order (Annexure P7), invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC. That is how, I am seized of the matter.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context.
CRM No. M-11550 of 2013 (O&M) 5
8. As is evident from the record that the prosecution sought to summon Dr.Asha Dhir, Deputy Director Ballistic, CFSL, MHA Govt. of India and Dr. Sanjiv, Assistant Director (Bio) CFSL, Chandigarh as additional evidence, to prove the reports of CFSL. In so far as the summoning of Dr.Asha Dhir and Dr.Sanjiv is concerned, there is no ambiguity in the reports (Annexures P8 & P9) of CFSL in any manner, which are per-se admissible and can very well be used as legal evidence against the accused, as contemplated u/s 293 Cr.PC. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly declined this plea of the prosecution to summon them in the impugned orders (Annexures P5 & P7). Since the trial Court has recorded the cogent and valid grounds in this relevant connection, so, this prayer of prosecution cannot possibly be accepted in this application (Annexure P6) for additional evidence.
9. Sequelly, the prosecution has also sought to produce the Clerk from the office of Commissioner of Police to prove the orders (Annexures P10 to P12) canceling the arm licenses of the accused that their arm licenses were already expired many months prior to the present occurrence. As regards the production of additional evidence to prove the date of expiry of arm licenses of the accused is concerned in this regard, it has been specifically mentioned in the application (Annexure P6) that they (accused) have possessed and used the illegal weapons as their arm licenses were already expired many months prior to the date of present occurrence. In this manner, they are also criminally liable to keep in their possession and commit heinous offences with illegal weapons. As it is apparent from the record that the main ground, which appears to have CRM No. M-11550 of 2013 (O&M) 6 been weighed with the trial Court to negate this plea of prosecution, was that the occurrence had taken place on the night intervening 20/21.4.2011 and orders of cancellation of arm licenses of the accused were passed on 23.4.2011 and it was not shown how the said orders passed by the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar are relevant.
10. Here, to me, the trial Court has slipped into a deep legal error in this relevant connection. The bare perusal of the record (orders Annexures P10 to P12) would reveal that the arm licenses of accused Ram Simran Singh Makkar was valid upto 14.6.2010. Likewise, the arm licence of accused Jasdeep Singh was valid upto 25.2.2011 and that of Amardeep Singh Sachdeva was valid uptill 28.8.2010, which were not renewed. In the wake of police recommendation, no doubt, their arm licenses were cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, by means of orders dated 23.4.2011 (Annexures P10 to P12) respectively, but it is clear from the pointed orders that their arm licenses were expired much prior to the date of present occurrence in the manner mentioned here-in-above.
11. Therefore, in order to prove that the arm licenses of indicated accused were expired much prior to the date of present incident, the production of pointed additional evidence/orders canceling the arm licenses, in which, the date of their expiry is mentioned, was very much essential to decide the real controversy between the parties. As discussed earlier, the trial Court has illegally held that as the occurrence is of 20/21.4.2011, so the orders dated 23.4.2011, by virtue of which, their arm licenses were cancelled, are not relevant. In fact, the production of these orders are very much relevant & essential to prove the date of expiry of CRM No. M-11550 of 2013 (O&M) 7 arm licenses of the indicated accused. What will be the natural consequences or effect of such additional evidence with regard to the nature of offences, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Be that as it may, in any case, the opportunity to produce such relevant evidence cannot possibly be denied to the prosecution, as contrary urged on behalf of the accused. Hence, once it is proved on record that this additional evidence sought to be produced by the prosecution is essential for just decision of the case, in that eventuality, the Court has the vast power to allow such additional evidence in order to arrive at a right conclusion, as envisaged u/s 311 Cr.PC. Moreover, production of such relevant evidence is legal requirement and essential element of just & fair trial. Therefore, to my mind, the trial Court ought to have granted the adequate opportunity to the prosecution to prove the orders (Annexures P10 to P12). Thus, the impugned order (Annexure P7) cannot legally be sustained in this relevant connection and deserves to be & is hereby modified to the following extent in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
12. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
13. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition is partly accepted. The prayer of prosecution to summon Dr.Asha Dhir and Dr.Sanjiv is declined. At the same time, the trial Court is hereby directed to permit the prosecution to summon the concerned Clerk from the office CRM No. M-11550 of 2013 (O&M) 8 of Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar to prove the orders (Annexures P10 to P12), by virtue of which, the arm licenses of indicated accused were cancelled. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P7) is accordingly modified to the extent and in the manner depicted here-in- above.
14. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the trial, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition.
(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 27.5.2013 AS Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No