Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The matter was investigated and after investigation, challan in the FIR was filed only against Sartaj Singh. All other accused were exonerated and were kept in column No.2. In cross case, one of the accused died and challan was filed only against two persons, whereas, four of them namely Palwinder Singh, Rajwant Singh, Sukhdeep Singh and Satkar Singh, were kept in column No.2.

Both sides being aggrieved, filed their respective application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. An application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by injured witness Manjeet Singh in the FIR No.477 for summoning Sukhpal Singh and Tejpal Singh sons of Gurdev Singh and Parab Sharan and Preet Samrat sons of Mohan Sarup. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dismissed the application filed by Manjeet Singh for summoning of the accused Sukhpal Singh and others, vide order dated 05.09.2017. Whereas, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by Sartaj Singh in a cross case for summoning Palwinder Singh, Satkar Singh, Rajwant Singh and Sukhdeep Singh, was allowed, vide order dated 21.04.2018.

Further, while dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by Manjeet Singh, the trial Court observed that the investigation had been conducted by four DSPs and all four DSPs found the co-accused Sukhpal Singh and others in the cross case under Section 326 IPC innocent, whereas, no such DSP has been named as a witness by the prosecution, which was also evident from the order committing the case to 6 of 17 CRR No.28 of 2018 (O&M) and other connected cases Sessions. Moreover, in an application moved by the petitioner seeking the investigation report of the DSP Assandh and DSP Panipat, he was informed that no such documents or enquiry report were available on the file. Further, another reason for dismissing the said application is that the complainant Ran Singh had not been examined by the prosecution, whereas, the Court over looked the fact that Manjeet Singh was not only an eye witness but was also an injured witness, who received gun shot injury on his chest and had been examined and statement of such a witness has been ignored by the trial Court. Further, five persons were named in the FIR, the name of said five persons was also mentioned in the statement of Manjeet Singh, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case just because there is discrepancy in the role of Lalkara. There was a delay in registration of the cross case, whereas, the FIR was registered within six hours. Still, the Court did not find a prima facie case to summon the co-accused in the FIR under Sections 302, 307 of IPC. On the other hand, in offence under Section 326 IPC, as many as four persons are ordered to face trial.

While arguing the revision petition against the order dated 21.04.2018 passed by the trial Court, vide which, Palwinder Singh and others are summoned to face the trial in the cross case under Section 326 IPC, Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court while summoning Palwinder Singh and others observed that two Deputy Superintendent of Police had verified the innocence of all four accused and the opinion of both DSPs was different to each other, which is factually incorrect as was evident from the report of second DSP, placed on 7 of 17 CRR No.28 of 2018 (O&M) and other connected cases record as Annexure P-4. Secondly, the impugned orders were disturbing and leaves much to be desired as learned trial Court while allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by Sartaj Singh in the cross case, has given a clean chit even to the accused Sartaj Singh, against whom challan has been filed under Section 302 IPC, whereas, the trial has yet to commence. Further, even the medical report of Sartaj Singh was obtained and cannot be relied upon as Sartaj Singh knowingly and with malafide intention shifted himself from government hospital to a private hospital. He left from Government Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh and got himself admitted in Mukat Hospital for obvious reasons.

CRR-28-2018 (O&M) Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, learned counsel for the respondents raised the preliminary objection that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be instituted only by the State. However, it does not lie in the mouth of counsel for the respondents to say so as it is suffice is to note for the purpose of present case that the second application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the cross case for summoning Palwinder Singh and others too was filed at the behest of complainant Sartaj Singh.