MALKIAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 27.11.2009 (Annexure P-19) passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide which an application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning of witnesses has been dismissed and for issuance of further directions to the respondents to obtain opinion on the handwriting of respondents No. 5 and 8 from some Central Forensic Science Laboratory.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution story are that the dead body of Harkewal Singh, son of the petitioner, was found lying on the railway track. Initially members of the family of deceased did not express any suspicion on any one. Later on, petitioner Malkiat Singh made a complaint that his son was murdered by accused Amrik Singh and others and dead-body was thrown on the railway track with a view to give impression that the deceased had committed suicide. Accordingly, FIR No. 132 dated 18.5.2004 under Sections 302//120-B IPC was registered at Police Station, Dhuri. After investigation of the case, challan against accused Amrik Singh, Darshan Singh, Sohan Singh, Zora Singh and Mohinder Pal Singh was presented. Thereafter, a supplementary challan against accused Dhanwant Singh was also presented. All the accused were charge-sheeted. Zora Singh accused had recorded his confessional statement before the Illaqa Magistrate. Later on, an application was moved before the Judicial Magistrate for grant of pardon as he wanted to become an approver. His statement was recorded but prayer for grant of pardon was declined.

(3.) Petitioner Malkiat Singh was examined as PW-6 and his examination-in-chief was recorded on 6th December, 2007 and he was cross-examined on 12.12.2007. While he was cross-examined on 12.12.2007 by the counsel representing Zora Singh, he disclosed that accused Sohan Singh and Darshan Singh came to the Office of Deputy Commissioner and sworn their affidavits and original affidavits were in their possession. They wanted to produce original affidavits on the file but an objection was raised by the counsel for Sohan Singh and Darshan Singh that these affidavits cannot be used either by the prosecution or the defence. They also moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings against the complainant for producing the forged affidavits as they never sworn these affidavits. The matter with regard to consideration of these affidavits was before the learned Sessions Judge but none of the parties pressed for objection regarding production of the affidavits. Later on, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on 18.9.2008 for grant of permission to examine Parveen Kumar Garg (Notary Public) and Chamkaur Singh for getting proved the aforesaid affidavits from them. The application was allowed and permission was granted to the prosecution to examine Parveen Kumar Garg, Notary Public and Chamkaur Singh. The order dated 10.1.2009 was challenged before this Court in Crl. Revision No. 262 of 2009 which was allowed on 1.4.2009. However, it was left to the parties to move an appropriate application before the trial Court. However, the application was dismissed by the trial Court by stating that depositions of Parveen Kumar Garg and Chamkaur Singh could not be read into evidence in view of the orders passed by the High Court on 1.4.2009. Later on, the Public Prosecutor also moved an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for investigation regarding execution of affidavits by Sohan Singh and Darshan Singh which was allowed by the trial Court on 8.5.2009 and handwriting samples of both Sohan Singh and Darshan Singh were taken for comparison with the signatures appearing on the affidavits and the same were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab and following opinion was given: