SUKHPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application for bail has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been charge sheeted in connection with F.I.R. No. 312/2011 registered at the Police Station, Gharsana, district Sri Ganganagar and facing trial in Session Case No. 4/2012 pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, camp Gharsana for the offences under Sections 307/34, 302, 351 and 324 Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that one Jai Singh lodged a written report at the Police Station, Gharsana on 24.7.2011 alleging inter alie that his daughter Praveen Kaur had been married with Balvinder Singh about 18 to 20 years ago; Praveen Kaur called him for her house on 23.7.2011 at about 7.00 O'Clock and informed that Balvinder Singh has launched an assault upon her. On receiving this call, the complainant sent his son D.C. Singh and son in law Guruvidra Singh on a motorcycle for inquiring about the trouble. A little later, the maternal grandson of the complainant called him again and informed that fight may escalate. Thereafter the other son of the complainant, namely Balwant Singh, took a tractor and went towards the house of Praveen Kaur. The first informant and his wife Sukhdev Kaur also took a vehicle of one Harmail Singh and went towards the house of Praveen Kaur at 10.30 PM. It is alleged that at about 10.30 in the night when the first informant reached the village 4NM, they saw that D.C. Singh, Balwant Singh and Praveen Kaur were coming towards them on a tractor and on seeing the first informant, they got down from the tractor. At that time Balvinder Singh, Gurucharan Singh S/o Nakshatra Singh and Sukhpal Singh alias Paal Singh S/o Gurucharan Singh. Paal Singh was having a pistol in his hand Balwant Singh and Gurucharan Singh exhorted him to open fire, on which Paal Singh fired the gun and the gun shot hit the left thigh of D.C. Singh. In the meantime, Gurucharan Singh took the pistol from Paal Singh and fired the second gun shot, which hit the calf of D.C. Singh, due of which D.C. Singh fell down. The first informant and his companions raised hue and cry, upon which the accused persons ran away. On the basis of this written report, an F.I.R. No. 312/2011 was registered for the offences under Sections 307/34, 341 and 324 Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act and the investigation commenced. D.C. Singh expired as a result of his injuries and therefore, the offence under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code was added to the case. On the post mortem of the dead body of D.C. Singh being conducted, it was found that he was having a punctured wound on the left thigh and a bullet was found from inside the wound and the result of the gun shot resulted into tearing of the femoral vessel causing excessive blood loss. Another injury being an entry would of bullet was found on the left side of lower portion of the leg and a corresponding exit wound was also found accompanied with an communited commuted fracture of left leg bone. The cause of death of D.C. Singh was found to be the shock as a result of ante-mortem fire arm injuries. A pistol was recovered at the instance of accused Gurcharan Singh. A charge sheet has been filed against the present petitioner, Gurucharan Singh and Balvinder Singh for the aforesaid offences and the trial has commenced. Now the instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the present petitioner seeking bail in connection with aforesaid case.

(3.) Mr. M.D. Purohit, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that in this case the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Referring to the statement of Praveen Kaur, it is submitted that the aforesaid witness, who is the star witness of the prosecution, has made a specific allegation that only two person, viz. Gurucharan Singh and Paal Singh came near them when she was going towards village 5JN with her brother D.C. Singh and brother-in-law Balwant Singh. The accused Gurucharan Singh and Paal Singh came and accosted them when they reached some distance from their house. A specific allegation of this witness is that Gurucharan Singh fired a shot from the pistol being held by him and the gun shot so fired hit the left calf of D.C. Singh, after which D.C. Singh accelerated the tractor. A little further ahead, she saw her mother and father coming towards them on another tractor, on which D.C. Singh stopped the tractor. Balwant Singh ran away from the tractor and D.C. Singh fell down because of gun shot injury receiving by him. At that point of time, Balvinder Singh Gurucharan Singh and Paal Singh reached there and after raising a cry that he should not be left alive, Gurucharan Singh made the second fire, which hit the left thigh of D.C. Singh. Paal Singh made another fire with the gun, from which the pellet hit the jumper being worn by her and then caused injury to her abdomen. Reference has also been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the statement of Sukhdev Kaur, in which it has been mentioned that when D.C. Singh and Praveen Kaur met the witness on the tractor, at that time D.C. Singh was already having one gun shot injury on his left calf and he fell down on seeing the witness. Thereafter Balvinder Singh, Gurucharan Singh and Paal Singh came there on a motorcycle and shouted that the assault should be made, upon which Gurucharan Singh opened gun fire, which hit the left thigh of D.C. Singh. She has stated that thereafter Paal Singh also made a fire for killing Praveen Kaur, due to which Praveen Kaur received injury on her abdomen. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the statement of Balwant Singh, in which he also stated to have seen the first injury being caused to his brother D.C. Singh and that too by Gurucharan Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the statements of Biarbal Ram and Hans Raj, on whose vehicle Jai Singh, the first informant and his wife reached the scene of the occurrence. They have stated that by the time they reached near the place of the occurrence, D.C. Singh had already received the injuries and told the witnesses that the injuries have been caused to him by Balvinder Singh and Gunicharan Singh and that when the witnesses reached the place of the occurrence, Gurucharan Singh's son Sukhpal Singh was not present at the scene of the occurrence. Thus, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact, the first informant and his wife are not the eye-witnesses of the occurrence and that the petitioner has been simply implicated in this case because he is the some of Gurucharan Singh, the main accused. It is prayed that as the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail in this case.