CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1123 OF 2007 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: November 17, 2008
Surjit Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. D. S. Sandhu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. P. S. Ahluwalia, Adovcate,
for respondent Nos.2 to 6.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner has impugned an order declining his
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for grant of permission to lead
additional evidence. The petitioner moved an application dated
22.7.2005 for summoning the record of enquiry conducted by S.P.,
Ludhiana as well as for summoning two additional witnesses,
namely, Ram Parkash Mann and Harmesh Puri.
This FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint made by
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1123 OF 2007 :{ 2 }:
Surjit Singh, petitioner. Allegation is that his son was waylaid by 5 to
6 young men while he and his son were returning from fields. These
persons were carrying lathis and bats and allegedly caused several
injuries to his son. The assailants thereafter made good their escape
from the scene. The complainant suspected that Rajinder @ Jinda
and Dharampal @ Kaka were amongst the assailants and they had
assaulted his son with a motive as his son was involved in a fight with
Dharam Pal prior to the said incident. The son of the complainant
Arundeep @ Deepa succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of
investigation, 6 persons were challaned, one of them was Amrit Pal
Singh. He (Amrit Pal Singh) died and proceedings against the
remaining five accused are in progress.
In the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C, it is
pleaded that Amrik Singh father of Amrit Pal Singh had moved one
application on 5.11.2003 for conducting an inquiry against Ram
Parkash Mann and Dr.Harmesh Puri, Councillor, alleging that they
had handed over an amount of Rs.82,000/- to SHO Surinder Mohan
Sharma on behalf of the complainant, which the SHO had demanded
for giving clean chit to his son Amrit Pal Singh. During the course of
enquiry, statements of number of witnesses, including applicant
Amrik Singh and that of Ram Parkash Mann, Harmesh Puri, were
recorded. Plea is that Ram Parkash Mann and Harmesh Puri could
not be cited as witnesses due to inadvertence. It is accordingly
pleaded that production of enquiry report and examination of Ram
Parkash Mann and Harmesh Puri is necessary and essential for just
decision of the case and, thus, they should be summoned.
While appearing in response to the notice, the accused-
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1123 OF 2007 :{ 3 }:
respondents have objected to the prayer made in the application.
The respondents would state that the enquiry has got no relevance
with the offences and Ram Parkash Mann and Harmesh Puri are not
the witnesses to the facts and as such, they can not give any
evidence relevant to the charge framed against the respondents.
Their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C were not recorded and,
thus, it can not be said that enquiry or their examination is essential
for the just decision of the case.
It is noticed in the impugned order that Hawaldar
Balwinder Singh appeared and produced a photo copy of enquiry file,
which is annexed with the case file. This includes a complaint and
application dated 4.11.2003, which was registered on 5.11.2003.
This is the application which was submitted by Amrik Singh father of
Amrit Pal Singh. There is some indication available from this that
Amrit Pal Singh was picked up in connection with the present FIR
and the applicant alongwith Ram Parkash Mann and Harmesh Puri
had contacted SHO Surinder Mohan Sharma for release of his son.
Ram Parkash Mann and Harmesh Puri later told to the applicant that
SHO had demanded Rs.one lac for release of his son. As per
applicant (Amrik Singh) he had handed over a sum of Rs.65,000/- on
8.10.2003 and another sum of Rs.17,000/- on 9.10.2003 to Ram
Parkash Mann, who handed over the same to Harmesh Puri,
Councillor, who thereafter, had told the applicant that his son would
be released. The applicant has alleged that despite he having paid
the amount, his son was not released and Ram Parkash Mann,
Harmesh Puri and the SHO were demanding another sum of Rs.one
lac. The SHO had further threatened that in case the demand was
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1123 OF 2007 :{ 4 }:
not met, his son would be involved with the aid of Section 120-B IPC.
He had subsequently filed a Criminal Writ Petition before this Court
for appointing a Warrant Officer, when Amrit Pal Singh was found
detained in the Police Station. He had, thus, prayed for action against
Ram Parkash Mann, Harmesh Puri and the SHO and also to declare
his son innocent. This complaint was enquired into by SP, Ludhiana,
who submitted his report on 21.11.2003. The finding further is that
Amrit Pal Singh was involved in the occurrence.
Additional Sessions Judge, Nawashahr, found that the
enquiry report and the other aspects of the complaint mainly
pertained to taking money by the SHO and had no concern with the
facts of the case in connection with the murder. The Court
accordingly observed that said facts can not be said to be relevant to
the case. The enquiry report may otherwise be indicating that Amrit
Pal Singh was involved in this case but since he has expired, the
finding of the enquiry report, as per the Court, would loose
significance.
I have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties. It has rightly been observed by the Trial Court
that Ram Parkash Mann and Harmesh Puri are not witnesses to the
incident which is being tried by the Court. The allegation of demand
of money by the SHO to leave one of the accused would have no
relevance for deciding the merits of the case. If permitted, it would
lead to a parallel trial.
The prayer of the prosecution to examine Ram Parkash
Mann and Harmesh Puri and so to for producing the enquiry report
which has no relevance has rightly been declined. The Court found
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1123 OF 2007 :{ 5 }:
that there was no merit in the application and has accordingly
dismissed the same. There was no prayer made for examining or
producing any other witness than Ram Parkash Mann and Harmesh
Puri in the application moved by the prosecution. The copy of the
application is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5 and the
prayer made is for summoning these two persons as witnesses only.
It can not be said that examination of these two witnesses and
production of enquiry report would be essential for the just decision
of the case. Nothing has been pointed out by counsel for the
petitioner, which would call for interference in the impugned order by
this Court.
Earlier when the matter was placed before another
Bench, a short order was passed by the Court and the prayer of the
petitioner for summoning the enquiry report and for summoning Ram
Parkash Mann and Harmesh Puri as witnesses was declined.
However, the prosecution was permitted to examine police officials
who recorded the statements of Harjinder Singh and Dilawar Singh
during the enquiry conducted by S.P., Headquarters, Ludhiana.
Since there was no prayer made in the application for examining
these two witnesses or for recall of these two witnesses, such a
prayer can not be considered and entertained for the first time here
before this Court. The relevancy of examining the police officials to
prove the statements of Harjinder Singh and Dilawar Singh during
this enquiry is not explained in any manner. It is also not pointed out
as to how it would be essential for the just decision of the case.
Even if these two witnesses are required to be confronted with their
previous statements, as was made out during the course of
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1123 OF 2007 :{ 6 }:
arguments, the prayer in this regard has first to be made before the
Trial Court, which would see the relevancy of such prayer and further
if such evidence is considered essential for just decision of the case,
only then such a prayer can be considered.
I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the impugned order
and would dismiss this revision petition.
November 17 , 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE