JAGDEEP SINGH ALIAS RANA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Misc. No. 3817 of 1997 is allowed and petitioner is permitted to place certified copy of the first information report in question on the file.

(2.) CRIMINAL Misc. No. 3015-M of 1987 is an application under section 482 of the Code or Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing of the above referred to First information Report No. 217 of 1985 dated 3rd July, 1985 of Police Station Pehow, District Kurukshetra in Haryana. It is alleged inter alia that petitioner Jagdeep Singh alias Rana was involved in false cases by the political enemies of his father, an Ex-M.L.A. that Inspector Harbans Singh Gill of C.I.A. Staff, Patiala, who was politically opposed to the father of the petitioner at the relevant time cooked up a false story and attributed a confessional statement to the petitioner and wrote to the Station House Officer. Police Station Pehow, that it was likely that he may continue his efforts to murder General Dyal's family members, having conspired with one Sucha Singh son of Teja Singh to murder Karam Singh, resident of village Tukker, who is the brother of the said General, although petitioner never made any such statement before the said Inspector. It is further contended that Sucha Singh, Mohar Singh and Balkar Singh, co-accused of the petitioner in the impugned first information report were tried and acquitted by the Designated Court, Karnal, vide order dated 14th May, 1986. and the Court observed that there was no evidence on record to prove that they had held meeting with petitioner Jagdeep Singh, and that under the circumstances trial of the petitioner in the impugned first information report would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and for said reason the first information report is liable to be quashed against the petitioner.

(3.) THE first information report by itself makes it clear that Harbans Singh Gill of C.I.A. Staff Patiala, on Ist July, 1985, wrote to the Station House Officer, Police Station Pehowa, that Jagdeep Singh alias Rana son of Shiv Singh, Ex-M.L.A. was arrested by him in case F.I. R. No. 206 dated 13th June, 1985, of Police Station Sadar, Patiala, and during investigation he made above referred to disclosures. That being a confessional statement by an accused before a police officer is not admissible in evidence in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and so cannot be made basis for prosecution of the petitioner. No independent evidence could be collected during investigation to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime with regard to conspiracy for murder of Karam Singh brother of General R.S. Dyal. Co-accused Sucha Singh, Mohar Singh and Balkar Singh were tried by Judge, Designated Court, Karnal, in the instant case F.I.R. No. 217 dated 3.7.1985, and copy of the judgment of the said Court has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P. 3. Statements of accused Mohar Singh and Balkar Singh under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could not be recorded by Judge. Designated Court, Karnal, for want of any evidence and he has remarked that there was not even an iota of incriminating evidence against the said accused. While dealing with Sucha Singh he has remarked that in the absence of any further evidence with regard to their having entered into a criminal conspiracy with Jagdeep Singh alias Rana as suggested by the prosecution to commit the murder of Karam Singh Dyal, brother of General R.S. Dyal, they cannot be held guilty of an offense punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. This obviously indicates exoneration of the petitioner, particularly when it is further added that there is also no evidence on record to prove that they had held meeting with one Jagdeep Singh and others at various places where they had excited the people to commit the murder of important persons. Even Inspector bill in the first information repot has only gone to the extent that it is likely that petitioner may continue his efforts and to murder General Dyal's family members, which is indicative of the fact that it was not a definite conclusion to his satisfaction on the basis of any material it To permit prosecution on the basis of such circumstances would naturally amount to abuse of the process of the Court.