HARDEV SINGH Vs. ALLA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prays for quashing of order dated 11.6.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, framing charge against the petitioner under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC in case CBI FIR No. 21/90 dated 29.1.1990.

(2.) THE case has a chequered history, which may briefly be noticed. On 8.7.1985 one Inderjit Singh s/o All Singh was found hanging in House No. 1895, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh, which belonged to the accused-petitioner Hardev Singh. Inderjit Singh deceased had taken one Room on rent on the ground floor from his landlord Hardev Singh on 26.1.1985. Hardev Singh lodged a report vide DDR on 8.7.1985 at P.S. Sector 34, Chandigarh. ASI Radhey Sham and Constable Hoshiar Singh visited the scene of crime and after investigation, ASI Radhey Sham opined that it was a case of suicide. On 8.7.1985, postmortem examination was conducted on the dead body of Inderjit Singh by Dr. S.K. Garg. The complainant Alla Singh on the basis of the postmortem report came to know that apparent cause of death of his son was asphyxia on account of hanging. He submitted a complaint to the Home Minister with a request, which resulted into fresh investigation. An inquiry was conducted and the earlier finding was reiterated that the cause of death was suicide by hanging. However, the enquiry was entrusted to one Sita Ram, Inspector as per the orders of the I.G. Police, Chandigarh, who reported vide his report dated 19.8.1985 that a clear case of murder is made out. The report was accepted by the higher authorities and FIR No. 482/85 dated 24.9.1985 at P.S. Sector 34, Chandigarh was registered against the accused-petitioners namely Hardev Singh and his son Harpreet Singh. They were taken into custody and later released on bail. Before the investigation could be completed, Inspector Sita Ram was repatriated to his parent State of Punjab and investigation was carried by other police officer, which concluded that the death of Inderjit Singh deceased was not homicidal. The complainant Alla Singh filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking directions for investigation by an independent agency. The prayer of Alla Singh was accepted and it was ordered that investigation should be carried by S.P. Patiala. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer could not collect the evidence for charging the accused-petitioners and complainant again filed CWP No. 820 of 1990 before the Supreme Court seeking reinvestigation by C.B.I. This time, the investigation was entrusted by the Supreme Court to Sh. A.K. Sharma, Inspector, C.B.I. Chandigarh Branch. On account of lack of knowledge of Punjabi language, Sh. A.K. Sharma, Inspector could not proceed with the investigation, which was entrusted to Sh. D.S. Mann, inspector and thereafter it was entrusted to Sh. S.L. Gupta, DSP, CBI. On the completion of investigation, Chandigarh Branch CBI filed a cancellation report in the Court stating that Inderjit Singh deceased committed suicide. The CBI also charge sheeted Inspector Sita Ram for having collected evidence against the accused- petitioners in connivance with complainant Alla Singh by planting blood and other evidence. On 22.12.1994, the CJM, Chandigarh directed reinvestigation of the case by some senior officer for bringing out true facts, if any, to light. The CJM did not agree with the findings recorded by the CBI that Sita Ram, Inspector had planted blood on the clothes of the deceased Inderjit Singh. he basic ground for the afore-mentioned belief was that blood stains on clothes of the deceased were found on 8.7.1985 when the investigation of the case was undertaken by ASI Radhey Sham, who subsequently handed over one banian (under shirt), one Pant etc. of the deceased to Inspector Sita Ram. In the report of handing over and taking over clothes dated 29.8.1985, it is clearly mentioned that there were blood stains on those clothes. The investigation of the case was, therefore, entrusted to Sh. K.S. Kanungo, S.P., CBI, who in his report recommended prosecution of the accused-petitioner, his wife as well as his son Harpreet Singh under Sections 302, 218, 193 read with Section 34 PC. He also recommended prosecution of Khushwant Singh son of Hardev Singh under Section 302/34 IPC, Dr. S.K. Garg under Section 193, 218/34 IPC. Sh. K.S. Kanungo further reported that Inspector D.S. Mann, Sh. S.L. Gupta and Superintendent of Police R.K. Pachhanda wre not only responsible for deliberate letting of the accused-petitioners but were also responsible for roping in the innocent persons. Despite these recommendations, the senior officers advised for filing of cancellation report. The cancellation report was filed on 14.12.1998 vide which the complainant was directed to adduce evidence in support of the allegations levelled in the protest application. The complainant examined 10 witnesses including himself CW-1, R.S. Verma, Director from C.F.S.L. Laboratory, who inspected the scene of crime, Dr. Inderjit Dewan CW-2, who headed the Board of doctors constituted to re-examine the postmortem report of Inderjit Singh. As per the opinion expressed by the Board, it was a case of strangulation by ligature and after that the deceased Inderjit Singh was hanged by a turban from a fan. CW-3, Inspector Sita Ram, CW-4 A.K. Tandon, who deposed that Dr. S.K. Garg, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Inderjit Singh was subjected to departmental enquiry and proved the same Ex. PW-4/G. CW-5 Jagjit Puri, who was the Enquiry Officer against Dr. S.K. Garg, CW-6 S.I. Mai Chand, who was working as a police photographer, CW-7 Inspector G.S. Mann (wrongly mentioned as CW-6), CW-7 Inspector Tribhuwan, CW-8 Dr. H.B. Rao (wrongly mentioned as CW-7), CW-8 Kirti Chandra Kanungo, who had opined that it was a case of murder, CW-9 Suraj Pal, who proved his report concluding that it was a case of murder and not of suicide, the complainant Alla Singh himself. On the bass of the preliminary enquiry, the CJM, Chandigarh, passed on order on 20.4.2001 and summoned the accused-petitioners for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 18.2.2002 after supplying the copies of statements and documents as per the mandates of Section 208 Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE Additional Sessions Judge on 11.6.2003 came to the conclusion that the evidence on record shows that there were sufficient grounds warranting framing of charge against the accused-petitioners. The afore-mentioned conclusion was recorded after the detailed analysis of the evidence and the factual background of the case. The argument that the complainant has given a list of 42 witnesses and all of them were not examined, which shows violation of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. was rejected. The basic reason for rejecting the afore-mentioned contention is (a) that it is the wish of the complainant whether to examine all the witnesses or some of them; (b) that no obligation could be imposed on the complainant to examine all the witnesses. Therefore, it held that the defence of the accused-petitioners is likely to be prejudiced. Feeling aggrieved, the accused-petitioners have approached this Court against the order dated 11.6.2003 framing charge against the accused-petitioners.