GURWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order dated 2.5.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which the application filed by prosecution for secondary evidence has been allowed.

(2.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, who were accused in FIR No. 89 dated 25.7.2014 for offence under Section 306 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Sunam and are facing trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per prosecution version are that FIR in this case was lodged by complainant Gursewak Singh on the allegations that his father Balwinder Singh had committed suicide leaving behind a suicide note in which it was mentioned that Gurwinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh both petitioners had cheated him by executing a forged agreement to sell and that Gurwinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh used to demand more money from the deceased, as a result he used to remain in tension and that a few days before his death, Balwinder Singh had informed his son Gursewak Singh that Gurwinder Singh and Balwinder Singh accused were demanding more money from him and were humiliating him. It may be mentioned here that during investigation of the case, the Investigating Agency had got compared the hand writing/signatures appearing on the suicide note with admitted signatures of deceased on the sale deed executed by him in favour of Harpreet Kaur w/o Nirbhai Singh bearing sale deed No. 3390 dated 25.3.2013. The police had obtained report from a document expert. However, said Harpreet Kaur was not cited as a witness of the prosecution earlier, but on an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973 filed by the prosecution, which was accepted by the trial Court, Harpreet Kaur was allowed to be examined as prosecution witness. She was summoned along with sale deed by Balwinder Singh in her favour. She appeared in the Court and stated that she was not in possession of original sale deed since the same had been handed over to village Patwari who did not return it. Nevertheless she had endorsed photocopy of the sale deed available on the court file as Exhibit PW 4/A at the time of exhibition of the document. Defence counsel had raised an objection on the ground of mode of proof Thereafter the Additional PP for the State moved an application for leading secondary evidence, so as to prove photocopy of the sale deed. That application was contested by the accused taking various pleas. However, it was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 2.5.2017. The reasoning given by the trial Court while allowing the application is reproduced for convenience and better appreciation:-