Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 29 August, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Crl. Revision No. 2660 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No. 2660 of 2014
Date of decision : 29.08.2014
Deepak and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Tersely, the facts and material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that, initially, in the wake of statement of complainant Ram Niwas son of Deena Ram- respondent No.2 (for brevity 'the complainant'), a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused Deepak son of Jai Pal, Bhim son of Vijender Singh and their other co-accused Mohit son of Ved Pal, vide FIR No.126 dated 28.03.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 354-A, 450 and 212 IPC, by the police of Police Station Safidon, District Jind.
2. After completion of the investigation, the police has submitted the final police report (challan). The trial Court has accordingly framed the Kumar Naresh 2014.09.03 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2660 of 2014 -2- charges against accused Mohit, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 323 IPC, whereas petitioners accused Deepak and Bhim were charged under Section 212 IPC, by virtue of order dated 29.07.2013 (Annexure P-1) and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.
3. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, examined victim PW1 Meena, wife of Raj Kumar (deceased), by way of her statement (Annexure P-2) and complainant PW2, by means of his statement (Annexure P-3). They have, inter alia, stated that, on 27.03.2013, having heard the noise she went to roof of her house and found all the accused there. She has specifically maintained that petitioners accused Deepak and Bhim torn her clothes and also snatched ear rings, nose rings & golden chain from her. Meanwhile, her brother-in-law (complainant-PW2) came to the roof and witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter, on hearing noise, her husband Raj Kumar also came on the roof. Petitioners-accused Deepak and Bhim caught hold her husband Raj Kumar, gave beatings and thrown him in the compound. Subsequently, he succumbed to his injuries. As soon as, PW1 and PW2 have specifically named the petitioners as main accused in their respective statements, in the meantime, an application dated 06.01.2014 (Annexure P-4), for amendment of charges, was moved on behalf of the prosecution. The accused refuted the prayer of the prosecution and filed the reply (Annexure P-5).
4. Sequelly, the trial Court accepted the application of the prosecution and ordered to amend/frame the charges against the petitioners as well for the indicated offences, by virtue of impugned order dated Kumar Naresh 2014.09.03 10:02 01.08.2014 and separate charge-sheet of even date. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2660 of 2014 -3-
5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners-accused have preferred the present revision petition, to challenge the impugned order, invoking the provisions of section 401 Cr.PC.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, having gone through the record, with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit and the instant revision petition is deserves to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned here below.
7. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the victim (PW1) and complainant (PW2) did not name the petitioners as main accused, for the commission of murder of Raj Kumar, in their initial statements recorded by the police, so, the trial Court has committed a legal mistake to frame the charges against them under Sections 449, 302, 354-A and 323 IPC, by means of impugned order dated 01.08.2014, lacks merit.
8. As is evident from the record that PW1 Meena, wife of the deceased, made her statement (Annexure P-2), whereas complainant Ram Niwas appeared as PW2 and made his statement (Annexure P-3) in the Court, wherein, they have specifically stated that petitioners Deepak and Bhim caused injuries, snatched the gold ornaments from her (Meena) and have thrown Raj Kumar in the court-yard, culminating into his death. No doubt, the police has recorded their statements during the course of investigation and did not mention the fact with regard to the injuries caused by the petitioners to Raj Kumar (deceased). At the same time, complainant PW2 has explained that the police did not record his statement, but has only obtained his signatures on the pretext of receipt of dead body of his brother. Kumar Naresh 2014.09.03 10:02 In that eventuality, the possibility of police not correctly recording the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2660 of 2014 -4- statements of the complainant and victim Meena, in order to help the petitioners accused, cannot be ruled out at this stage.
9. Moreover, what is the affect of such contradictions in their statements recorded by the police, inter alia, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial, after acceptance of the evidence, by the trial Court. Be that as it may, prima facie, there was sufficient substantive evidence in the shape of statements of PW1 (Annexure P-2) and PW2 (Annexure P-3), to frame the charges, for the commission of pointed offences against the petitioners accused. It is now well settled principle of law that at the stage of framing the charges, the court has to prima facie consider, whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not and the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence sufficient for conviction, at this stage.
10. An identical question came to be considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case State of MP Vs. S.B.Johari and others AIR 2000 Supreme Court 665. Having interpreted the provisions of Sections 227/228 of the Cr.PC, it was ruled that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for the conviction of the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed.
11. Therefore, the trial Court appears to have correctly amended and framed the charges against the petitioners, in this relevant connection, by virtue of impugned order dated 01.08.2014, which, in substance, is as Kumar Naresh 2014.09.03 10:02 under: - I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2660 of 2014 -5- "As is clear from the allegations of complainant PW2 Ram Niwas in complaint Ex.PA as well as the accused Deepak and Bhim have not been named therein. Also, in the supplementary statement the prosecutrix has implicated the accused Deepak and Bhim only for shletering the main accused Mohit. However, both the complainant as well as eye witness when appeared in the witness box have alleged the involvement of accused Deepak and Bhim in the murder of Raj Kumar as well as regarding her sexual harassment and causing injuries to her. The name of accused Deepak and Bhim also came in the supplementary statement of eye witness/PW2 Meena. In view of above a prima facie case for framing charge under Section 449, 302, 354-A(2) and 323 IPC is made out against the accused Bhim and Deepak since the issue regarding the genuineness of testimonies of prosecution witnesses can only be determined while appreciating the prosecution evidence on merits. Henceforth, the application moved by the prosecution for amendment of charge is allowed and let the accused Deepak and Bhim be charge-sheeted accordingly.
12. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has appreciated the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. Such impugned order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
13. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
14. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side Kumar Naresh 2014.09.03 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2660 of 2014 -6- during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed as such.
Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present revision petition only.
August 29, 2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
naresh.k Judge
Kumar Naresh
2014.09.03 10:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh