RAJINDER PAL SINGH Vs. KULWINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aggrieved complainant has filed this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure and has sought the quashing of the orders Annexure P-l and P-2 whereby the trial court and the Revisional Court dismissed his complaint in respect of offences under Sec. 302/120-B read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On perusal of the papers, find that the complainant/petitioner has a grievance that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in furtherance of their common intention, or by forming conspiracy, held Raj Rani the wife of the complainant and forcibly administered poison to her and caused her death. The dead body was subjected to postmortem. The viscera from the dead body was sent to the Chemical Analyst, who reports that Raj Rani died of poisoning of aluminium phosphide. It appears from the averments in the petition that though the matter was reported to the police, no action was taken by them. The averments in the petition indicated that the police had prepared the case as an attempt to commit suicide under Sec. 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant has, however, a grievance that the respondent killed Raj Rani in the manner mentioned in the complaint.

(2.) According to the complainant, at about 8 A.M. on 23.3.1993, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 caught hold of Raj Rani by her arms, thereupon respondent No. 3 Kuldip Singh caught hold her by her long hair and respondent no.2 Laddu forcibly opened the mouth of Raj Rani. Thereupon respondent Kuldip Singh forcibly administered poison in the mouth of Raj Rani. In the course of these attempts, allegedly, these accused gave first blows and slaps on the face and other parts of the person of Raj Rani. Raj Rani thereupon raised alarm which attracted the complainant and the witnesses, namely, Sandeep Kumar, Malook Singh, Harbilas Singh and Balbir Singh.

(3.) After the receipt of the complaint, the Magistrate proceeded to record the statement of the complainant and his witnesses. Clause (2) of Sec. 202 makes a provisions that in an inquiry under clause (1) of Sec. 202, the Magistrate may if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath. That clause further makes a proviso that if it appears to die Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call the complainant to produce his witnesses and examine them on oath. It appears that pursuant to that provision, the Magistrate has thus recorded on oath the statement of the witness, and took on record the other documentary evidence. In the context of that, it may be noted that before the Magistrate the evidence of PW-1 (complainant) and of witnesses Malook Singh (PW-2) Balbir Singh (PW-3) Harbilas Singh (PW-4) and Dr. Shashi Bala (PW.5) was recorded. It may be recalled here that PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident in which, allegedly, the respondents administered poison to Raj Rani, as mentioned above. The Judicial Magistrate thereupon embarked upon the analysis of the evidence and concluded that the story put forth by the complainant was an after thought, and was an attempt to implicate persons.