BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Code'), the petitioners have assailed the order dt. June 3, 1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Hanumangarh u/s. 311 of the Code, as an abuse of the process of the Court.

(2.) A criminal case was registered against the three petitioners and one Jagdish (discharged by the trial Court) at Police Station, Hanumangarh, on the basis of the information lodged by Palaram on July 3, 1982. The allegations were that Balwant Singh and Bhagwan Singh armed with 'gandasis', Jaspal Singh armed with 'drant' (sickle) and Jagdish armed with sword attacked him on July 3, 1982 and caused simple and grievous injuries to him with 'gandasi' and after sometime caused injuries with those weapons to his father Hans Raj which resulted in his death. Charge-sheet against the three petitioners and one Jagdish was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh from where they were committed to stand their trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Hanumangarh. By the order dt. Feb. 14, 1985, the learned Judge discharged Jagdish. Petitioner Jaspal Singh was charge-sheeted under Ss. 302, 326/34, 324/34, Bhagwan Singh under Ss. 326, 324, 302/34 and Balwant Singh under Ss. 326/34, 324/34 and 302/34 IPC and they were tried for those charges. Final arguments in the case were heard on May 27, 1985 and the case was adjourned to June 3, 1985 for pronouncement of judgment. On that date, the learned Judge instead of pronouncing the judgment passed the order u/s. 311 of the Code impugned in this petition before this Court.

(3.) By the aforesaid order u/s. 311 of the Code two eye-witnesses viz. Palaram (P.W. 2) and Premaram (P.W. 3) were ordered to be recalled to clarify whether 'gandasis' and 'darant' were used from blunt side or the sharp edged side by the three petitioners in causing injuries to Hans Raj. As is evident from the impugned order, during the course of arguments defence counsel raised the point that the medical evidence is inconsistent with the statements of the eye-witnesses Pala Ram and Prem Raj because these two witnesses have stated about the three petitioners and Jagdish using sharp edged weapons whereas the Doctor conducting the post-mortem examination of Hans Raj has opined that none of the injuries found on the dead body was caused by a sharp edged weapon. The defence counsel placed reliance on the principle enunciated in the case of Hallu v. State of M. P., AIR 1974 SC 1936 wherein it was held that when a witness states about the sharp edged weapon being used then, unless he states about the blunt side of the weapon being used, there is no warrant for supposing that what the witness meant was that the blunt side of the weapon was used. The learned Judge in view of that decision and the medical opinion in the case, observed that neither the Public Prosecutor in examination-in-chief of the witnesses nor the defence counsel in cross-examination, put any question, to get it clarified whether the weapons were used from the sharp edged side or blunt side by the assailants. The learned Judge, therefore, ordered for recalling eye-witnesses Palam and Prema Ram to clarify the position.