GANESH DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Criminal Revision filed under Section 401 read with Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 14th May, 1996 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, who decided to frame charges against petitioner Ganesh Dass under Sections 302/34 and 201, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) ONE Balwant Singh son of Kundan Singh, resident of Ghumar Mandi, Ferozepur Cantt., made allegations that he had two Canters from which he earned his livelihood. He had two sons and three daughters. The name of his elder son was Rachhpal Singh while the name of the younger son was Jarnail Singh, aged about 24 years. Jarnail Singh had been on visiting terms to the house of Ganesh Pandit, who was a Mechanic in Punjab Roadways Depot, Ferozepur, for the last about 4/5 years. During that period Jarnail Singh had developed illicit relations with Usha, wife of Ganesh. The complainant and his family members used to prevent Jarnail Singh from visiting the house of Ganesh petitioner. The complainant alleges that Smt. Usha had enticed his son by giving him allurement saying that he should not get himself married anywhere and that she would get him married with her sister. After some time the parents of Smt. Usha refused to do so. Thereafter Smt. Usha gave him allurement that she would get her daughter Raveena married with him. Jarnail Singh used to go to the house of Ganesh daily in the evening and used to return after two/three hours. Further it is alleged that Jarnail Singh was adamant that in case he was to marry, he would marry Raveena, daughter of Ganesh, alone and no other. On 12.1.1994 at about 6 P.M. Jarnail Singh as usual went to the house of Ganesh Pandit. At about 12 mid-night, Ganesh, his son Raja and two other persons brought Jarnail Singh to the house of the complainant in a Jeep. At that time the light of the house was on. Those persons left Jarnail Singh in the Drawing Room and ran away along with the jeep and nothing was told to the complainant as to what had happened to Jarnail Singh. Thereafter the complainant saw that Jarnail Singh had already expired. Further it is alleged by the complainant that he was fully confident that his son Jarnail Singh had been murdered by Ganesh, his wife Usha Rani, his son Raja and his daughter Raveena, who have conspired with each other and have administered some poisonous substance to his son Jarnail Singh.

(3.) BOTH the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the motion stage did not find favour with this Court as in the opinion of this Court, though the direction dated 21.10.1995 passed by the Court of Session was to the effect that the challan against the accused persons be filed before the Illaqa Magistrate, but nevertheless the Court of Sessions was aware of the fact that a private complaint against the accused persons was also pending for commitment and both the challan and the complaint were committed to the Court of Session against the petitioner for trial. The application, which was moved by the learned counsel for the petitioner for inviting the cancellation report, has been rightly rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the said cancellation report was not required to be summoned because for the purpose of framing the charge, the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., and the other relevant documents attached with the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was required to be considered. The cancellation report which was sought to be relied upon by the accused is only an opinion evidence of the Police and was not binding upon the trial Court. Further the complaint filed by the complainant was also taken note of. The complaint and the case were committed to the Court of Session, who took cognizance not only on the cancellation report but also on the commitment of the complaint itself. After considering all those documents, the trial Court framed the charge. The cancellation report relied upon by the accused was also taken note of and rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur earlier and his order is dated 21.10.1995 (Annexure P-3) when he did not endorse the cancellation report and ordered for the putting of the challan against the petitioner. On 14.5.1996 before framing the charge, the learned trial Court took into consideration all the other relevant documents placed on the file besides the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., and then came to the conclusion that there were grounds to presume that all the accused, i.e., Ganesh Dass, Usha Rani, Rabina and Avan Kumar alias Raja had committed an offence punishable under Sections 302/34, I.P.C., whereas, the accused Ganesh Dass and Avan Kumar alias Raja had also committed an offence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C. In this regard I would like to reproduce the following order, which would show that the trial Court complied with the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure :-