Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 October, 2012
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CRM M-8764 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
CRM M-8764 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: October 15, 2012
Kulwant Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.
Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Advocate,
for the complainant.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 56 dated 19.12.2010, under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Balongi, District SAS Nagar.
Brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution, are that CRM M-8764 of 2012 2 complainant-Harjinder Singh made a statement that on 18.12.2010, at about 9.15 PM, his cousin Gurpreet Singh had gone to take documents from vehicle bearing No. PB-65-F-3737 belonging to Sadhu Singh uncle of the complainant. After some time, they heard commotion. On hearing that complainant along with his brother Harpreet Singh, father Rattan Singh, sister Kulwinder Kaur and uncle Amrik Singh went towards the house of the petitioner. The complainant party noticed that the petitioner - Kulwant Singh, Sarpanch and his sons were quarrelling with Gurpreet Singh. The petitioner and his brother Dilbar Singh armed with .12 bore rifles, Jatinder Singh son of the petitioner having pistol, Amarjit Singh @ Jitti also having pistol and some more persons were also present in the courtyard of the petitioner's house. Upon seeing the complainant party, petitioner raised a lalkara that the complainant party be not spared. Petitioner - Kulwant Singh fired a shot with his gun, which hit Rattan Singh on his head. Dilbar Singh also fired from his rifle, which hit on left leg, right ankle and back of the complainant. Complainant took his father Rattan Singh behind the vehicle. Accused persons released more fires upon the complainant party with intention to kill them. In this firing, Harpreet Singh sustained injuries on his right wrist and leg. Amrik Singh also sustained injuries on his both legs. Gurpreet Singh sustained injuries on his head, left thigh and right thing. Kulwinder Kaur also sustained injuries on her leg. Thereafter, the complainant party raised hue and cry. On hearing this, Surjit Singh and Sadhu Singh, uncles of the complainant reached the spot. On seeing them, the accused persons entered into their house with CRM M-8764 of 2012 3 their respective weapons. Injured were taken to the Civil Hospital, Phase- 4, Mohali, where Rattan Singh, father of the complainant was declared dead and Kulwinder Kaur was admitted for her treatment, whereas the other injured were referred to PGI, Chandigarh.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was not present at the spot. He was attending a reception at West Wood Resort, Dhakoli (Zirakpur). In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to the CD as referred to in CFSL report (Annexure P/2), wherein the petitioner was shown to be present with Major Harbans Singh, father of the bridegroom. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that during the investigation, supplementary challan under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P/4) was filed, wherein the petitioner has been found to be innocent. In addition to it, learned senior counsel for the petitioner further argued that at the instance of Dilbar Singh, a cross case has been registered from which it is clear that Dilbar Singh had fired in self-defence and reference to the site plan (Annexure P/3) has also been made. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this is a case of version and cross version and the complainant party was aggressive. As per the site plan, the complainant party had come to the house of the brother of the petitioner.
Learned State counsel, assisted by the learned counsel for the CRM M-8764 of 2012 4 complainant, has vehemently argued that plea of alibi is a weak type of evidence and now a days the electronic equipments can be manipulated, date and time can be adjusted as per the requirement. No authenticity can be attached to them. Mere presence at the reception in the evening does not mean that the petitioner was not present at the spot of occurrence in the present case. The petitioner is a Sarpanch, he owns vehicle. The alleged distance between the place of occurrence and West Wood Resort is 25 Kms which is a distance which can be covered on a vehicle within short time. There are specific allegations in the FIR that the petitioner has raised lalkara and fired rifle shot which hit on the head of Rattan Singh, father of the complainant, besides this, other persons of the complainant party also suffered injuries. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail as in the present case, capital sentence is provided. Learned State counsel further argued that charge sheet has been presented under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against Dilbar Singh and the petitioner. Charge has also been framed on 14.01.2012. They preferred criminal revision viz. CRR No. 239 of 2012 against the framing of charge, which has been dismissed on 25.01.2012 by this Court, even two prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Police had filed the discharge application which has been dismissed by the trial Court on 10.09.2012.
I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Contents of the FIR clearly show that the petitioner was present at the spot at the time of occurrence and he had fired fatal shot at CRM M-8764 of 2012 5 the deceased. Petitioner is seeking bail on the ground of the opinion of the investigating officer regarding his absence from place of occurrence as narrated in the report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., as well as, on the basis of CFSL report and the CD which indicate his presence at the reception place near Zirakpur at the time of occurrence. Such alibi is required to be proved through exhaustive, cogent and reliable evidence and not merely on the basis of CD and CFSL report, specifically when these electronic equipments can be manipulated. There is every possibility of changing the date and time according to the wishes of the individual in such type of CDs. The petitioner's plea of alibi cannot be evaluated at the bail stage. The said plea would have to be examined at the trial stage.
Perusal of the report under Section 173(8) Cr.p.C. indicates that allegedly, Amarjit Singh and the petitioner were present at West Wood Resort, Zirakpur on 18.12.2010 at about 9 PM. This report is solely based upon the statements of some persons and the videograph and the CFSL report. In the earlier report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the petitioner along with Dilbar Singh has been challaned and even the charge has been framed against them on 14.01.2012. Against the charge, they preferred Criminal Revision, which stands dismissed by this Court on 25.01.2012, even two prosecution witnesses have already been examined in this case. Furthermore, in pursuance to report under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. an application for discharge was also filed, the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 10.09.2012.
Merely on the basis of the statements, CD and CFSL report, CRM M-8764 of 2012 6 the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit specifically when available record clearly shows that accused was reasonably connected with the commission of offence which carries a capital punishment. Truth or otherwise of the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner will be considered and decided by the trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties.
So far as the question of firing by Dilbar Singh in the wake of self-defence is concerned, the petitioner cannot, at all, get any benefit specifically in the wake of alibi of the petitioner and the alleged self- defence of one of the accused and who is aggressive, it will not be of any help to the petitioner at bail stage as same also has to be decided at trial stage. All the contentions raised by the petitioner are such which could be agitated and scanned at the trial stage and not at the bail stage, because if same are discussed and decided, same would amount to deeper appreciation of evidence which is not permissible. Such discussion would also cause expression of opinion which may influence the merits of the case before the Trial Court. It is settled principle of law that the plea of alibi and defence plea raised during the arguments could be relevant, but that too could be weighed after complete evidence is recorded. Only tentative assessment of the evidence is required to be undertaken at the bail stage. The petitioner is raising the plea of alibi and self defence by a co- accused and to prove this, he will have to discharge the burden by producing satisfactory, reliable and authenticated evidence that his presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time was not possible because of his presence at the relevant point of time at another CRM M-8764 of 2012 7 place. Report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is ipse dixit of the police and is not binding on the Court as it is required to be proved in trial. Report for discharge had been formulated, but the trial Court refused to agree with the said police report. While granting bail in murder cases, courts are generally reluctant to entertain plea of alibi and self defence unless the same are absolutely beyond reasonable doubt.
So far as the relevancy of marks put on the sketch map on spot is concerned, the same are based on the statements of the witnesses to the police officer. These would be inadmissible and only that part of it is admissible which Investigating Officer saw himself at the spot. These points too cannot be discussed at bail stage, these are to be appreciated at the trial.
The issue of version and cross version can also not be appreciated at the stage of bail. It does not reduce the gravity of such a serious offence as in the present case wherein injuries have been caused with fire arm weapons to many persons, so as to take lenient view for grant of bail. It can only be appreciating after the entire evidence is led.
In view of the above, present petition is dismissed. However, any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
October 15, 2012 [Paramjeet Singh] vkd Judge