RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa dated 22.11.1994. On 13.7.1993 in the revenue estate of Mandi Dabwali one Ramesh Kumar was murdered and his brother Des Raj had lodged a report with the police being F.I.R. No. 189 dated 13.7.1993. Case under Sections 148, 149, 302, 120B of Indian Penal Code was registered on the statement of Des Raj. In the statement Des Raj had attributed definite role to the accused stated therein which were there assailants and conspirators. Six persons i.e. Sukhdev Singh, Jeet Singh, Bhola Singh, Kaka Singh @ Hardeep, Gurmeet Singh and Mohinder Singh were named in the F.I.R. The Police had filed a challan but except for Ranjit Singh alias Phula Singh, the police had found that the five other accused were incorrectly named in the F.I.R. and instead the police in its challan introduced the names of Kaka Singh @ Raghubir, Gurdeep Singh, Daljit Singh, Balwinder Singh, Raja Singh and Sher Singh., stated to be guilty of the offence in addition to Ranjit Singh.

(2.) BEING totally unsatisfied the investigation of the police and presentation of the challan in Court omitting the names of real culprits with a complaint was filed by Des Raj on 31.8.1993. In the complaint six persons were arrayed as accused-respondents and their names are:

(3.) THE grievance of the present petitioner Ranjit Singh who is accused in both the cases is that the separate trials will prejudice the right of the petitioner as he would not be able to formulate and modulate his line of defence fairly and would be made to face a different trials. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in consonance with the prayer in the petition is that both these cases be merged, amalgamated and tried together as one trial. Ths submission of the learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, is that there are different accused in both the cases and the complaint case instituted by the respondent herein will suffer greatly if both the cases are amalgamated. The counsel for the respondents submits that the accused in these two cases except one are different and consequently different evidence will have to be led. While accusing the investigating agency of manipulating the investigation so as to protect the real culprits, the police has introduced other names who have nothing to do with the occurrence in question.