Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nasib Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 8 March, 2001
Author: K.S. Garewal
Bench: K.S. Garewal
ORDER K.S. Garewal, J.
1. The petitioners are sisters Nasib Kaur and Surjit Kaur and their respective spouses Rattan Singh and Teja Singh. Nasib Kaur and Surjit Kaur had two brothers Jeet Singh and Sarwan Singh.
2. According to Jeet Singh has brother Sarwan Singh was done to death on June 18, 1998 by the petitioners. After the murder the dead body was cremated without any autopsy. Jeet Singh came to know about the death of his brother on June 29 and he approached the Bahrain Police to investigate (he circumstances leading to Sarwan Singh's murder but when no action was taken he presented a criminal complaint on August 19, against the petitioners, who are his sisters Nasib Kaur and Surjit Kaur and their respective husbands Rattan Singh and Teja Singh. In the complaint under Sections 302/34 read with Sections 120B and 201 IPC Jeel Singh gave the background of the relationships and pleaded that he and Sarwan Singh were joint owners of agricultural land in Narang Shahpur. Sarwan Singh was living with him and they had joint cultivation. He was single and issueless. It was further alleged that in January 1998 the petitioners managed to prevail upon Sarwan Singh to alienate his share in the land by transferring it to Naranjan Singh and took Sarwan Singh along with them to Rattan Singh's village Bharoli. As Sarwan Singh was not inclined to sell his share he returned to Narang Shahpur on May 1 and resumed living with Jeet Singh but in the first week of June Teja Singh and Rattan Singh took back Sarwan Singh to village Bharoli. Sarwan Singh also opened an account in the Punjab National Bank and deposited Rs. 20,0007- (Sic 20.00 lacs) received as token payment of sale consideration for the sale of his land from the vendee Ni-ranjan Singh. Registered sale deed was executed by Sarwan Singh in favour of Naranjan Singh before the Sub-Registrar, Phagwara on June 12. Naranjan Singh returned to U.K. and from there remitted an amount of Rs. 15 lacs, which was also credited to Sarwan Singh's account. On June 17 Surjit Kaur petitioner opened an account with the same bank with the deposit of Rs. 100/-, her sister Nasib Kaur already had an account in that bank. The petitioners along with Sarwan Singh visited the bank on that day and tried to prevail upon Sarwan Singh to transfer Rs. 10 lacs each to Nasib Kaur and Surjit Kaur. This was witnessed by Baldev Singh, who happened to be present in the bank. Sarwan Singh did not concede to their demands.
3. On the morning of June 18 Sarwan Singh left Nasib Kaur's house where all the petitioners were present, saying that he was returning to Narang Shahpur. The petitioners tried to prevail upon him not to go but he did not relent. The petitioners forcibly dragged Sarwan Singh and took him inside the house of Nasib Kaur. This was witnessed by two neighbours
- Jit Singh son of Ishar Singh and Kewal Singh, who happened to be passing by the house. Later at about 9.30 A.M. the petitioners declared that Sarwan Singh had died and they hurriedly arranged his cremation.
4. The petitioners were summoned after preliminary evidence had been recorded and on their appearance charges were framed against them on November 2, 2000.
5. The petitioners have challenged the framing of the charges on the ground that the order of the trial Court is non-speaking and no reasons had been given as to how a prima facie case had been made out. The relationship between Sarwan Singh and his brother Jeet Singh and the fact that the brothers were in joint cultivation and residence was not true. The police had investigated the case and reported on August 8, 1998 that Sarwan Singh had died a natural death. The two brothers were living separately. The deceased at that time was alone with his sisters and was not on speaking terms with his brother Jeet Singh. Moreover, the deceased was addicted to liquor. Initially Jeet Singh had alleged that Sarwan Singh had died because Nasib Kaur's daognter had kicked him on his testicles bu! in the complaint this version was changed. There was civil litigation between Jeet Singh and Sarwan Singh and a suit for injunction was pending in which injunction had been granted on May 4, 1998. The deceased was living with the petitioners and had executed a power- of-attorney dated February 21, 1998 in favour of Teja Singh (petitioner 4) with whom he also had a join! account in Jaland-har Central Cooperative Bank, Similarly petitioner I was a nominee of Fixed Deposit with Canara Bank. Furthermore, the police had made inquiry into the case and come to the conclusion that Sarwan Singh had died a natural death, the brothers were living separately and had not been on speaking terms.
6. On the basis of the above grounds the petitioners' counsel has argued that the charges should be quashed. Reliance was placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal Soni, 2000(3) RCR (Crl.) 452 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 2583 wherein it was held that while framing charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. the Court was required to evaluate (he material and not to accept al! that prosecution states as gospel truth. The documents made available by the accused should also be taken into consideration by the Court while framing the charge. This view was also followed by this Court in Dr. Puran Singh Jassl v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) RCR 325.
7. The petition has been opposed by the State and by Harbhajan Sirigh son of Jeet Singh complainant, who has died in the meanlime.
8. There are certain features of the case which could certainly provide a good defence to the petitioners. The question is whether the defence evidence can be considered at the time of framing of the charges and whether the Court is required to try the case even before prosecution has led evidence. The present case is based on a crim inal complaint and the petitioners were summoned on the basis of the preliminary evidence recorded by the Court. Neither the summoning order nor the transcripts of the preliminary statements have been placed on record. In a case registered by the police and sent up for trial after investigation, the first op-portunity for the Court to consider the evidence collected during investigation is when the Court proceeds to frame charges. If is at that stage the Court is required to look into the prosecution allegation to determine which are offences that the accused can be said to have prima facie commilted. In the present case this exercise seems to have already been undertaken when the petitioners were summoned. Therefore, to re-examine the prosecution case in the light of what the defence evidence is or is likely to be would seem to put the cart before the horse. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal Soni (supra) the prosecution case was that the accused, a Road Transport Inspector, had acquired property in excess of his known sources of income. During the investigation properties and assets belonging to the accused's mother-in-law, father, brother and nephew were also shown to be his assets, similarly the assets of his wife were also connected with the assets of the accused. Furthermore, several important documents that had been collected during the investigation had been withheld. According to the accused those documents supported him, therefore, if those documents were considered even prima facie there would be no scope to frame charges against him. After charges were framed the accused had filed a petition before the High Court, which directed the trial Court that the documents made available by (he accused during the trial be produced and may be taken into consideration while framing charges. The trial Court was thus bound to consider those documents and on account of the failure on the part of the trial Court to do so, the Supreme Court quashed the charges altogether. The above authority has no application to the present case. Herein the documents which the petitioners rely upon are the stay order in the civil case, (he card of the Bhog, statements of the Sarpanch and the Doctor recorded by the police, statement of Gurdev Singh, the report of police dated August 8, 1998, statement of Jeet Singh, special power of attorney by Sarwan Singh in favour of Teja Singh, account opening form of Teja Singh and Sarwan Singh and the Fixed Deposit receipt issued to Sarwan Singh by a bank. The above items of evidence may be weightly items of evidence which would be material during the trial at the appropriate stage but in a case where Court is called upon to frame charges in a complaint case under Sections 302, 120B and 201 IPC, documentary evidence and statements of witnesses recorded by the police, the police report and orders of civil Courts, bank documents etc. can have no bearing. In the case of Mohan Lal Soni (supra) the prosecution had alleged that he possessed properties beyond his known sources of income and during investigation the accused had presented documentary proof regarding the properties which belonging to his relatives and could not be said to be held by him. Those documents had been withheld from the Court when charge was framed and in-spite of the direction of the High Court the documents were not considered. It was this that led to the quashing of the charges. The present case is not a case in which documents would play a major role in framing of the charges though they could be material while considering defence evidence. The case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence and it would be for the complainant to establish the circumstances in order to prove the prosecution case. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that the petitioners are permitted to present their documentary and other evidence at the stage of framing of the charge then it would lead to a piquant situation where the Court would be required to consider the prosecution circumstantial evidence on the one hand and the defence documentary evidence on the other before framing of the charges. To weigh one against the other would be prejudicial to a fair trial.
9. In Dr. Puran Singh Jassi's case (supra) the accused was being prosecuted under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC on the basis of an FiR and he had sought summoning of some record at the pre-charge stage by filing an application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. It is obvious that the case pertained to documentary evidence and the Court was required to consider those documents before framing of the charge. It was under these circumstances that rejection of the application was held to be unjustified and the Court was directed to decide the application afresh and summon the documents, if necessary. This authority would have no application on the present case, which it may be reiterated, is based on a criminal complaint filed on the basis of circumstantial evidence which had led to the petitioners being summoned as accused. Examination of documentary or other evidence relied upon by the defence at the stage of charge was not a dire necessity.
10. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the some is hereby dismissed.
11. Petition dismissed.