VIRI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order, dated April 3, 1987 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur, whereby he accepted the revision petition filed by the complainant against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Bharatpur who took cognizance of offence against Viri Singh.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the complainant Chhitar Singh filed a complaint against 5 persons on 6 8 -1985 in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Bharatpur wherein it was alleged by him that on the night intervening between 24th and 25th June, 1985 at about 10.00 p.m. when he was sleeping in his house he heard the noice from the house of Viri Singh. He suddenly got up and also awakened Leeladhar his brother. When they intended to go to the house of Viri Singh they found Gajju and Satyapal standing at the gate with lathies. He and his brother then saw from their own compund that inside the hut of Viri Singh Attar Singh and Prem Singh had caught hold of the hands of Chatto from behind and Viri Singh was tying them. Chanto was saying that he has not done anything wrong and Bhudehi was alone in the house as the other persons had gone to see Ramleala she was feeling panicky and therefore, had called him. The same thing was being said by Bhudehi. Still Viri Singh, Attar Singh and Prem Singh fell Chatto down on the ground and then Viri Singh put a knot by a string around his neck and strangulated him to death. Number of persons gathered there but these persons were saying that since Chatto has committed sexual intercourse with Bhudehi he has been done to death Bhudehi was also saying the same that Chatto was called by her as she was afraid of loneliness in the house and he had not committed anything wrong with her. She also said that she will tell the police that innocent man has been wrongly killed On this the accused said that she may give a statement to the police, therefore, she should also be killed and, therefore, they killed her also. Accused threatened the villagers that they should not report the matter to the police, but in the morning when the complainant went to the police station he found Viri Singh already in the police station who told the police that he has killed both Chatto and Bhudehi. He (complainant) also wanted to give the details but the police said that only one report of each incident is taken. His statement coupled with the statement of Leeladhar. Gajju and Lohre was recorded by the police and they told the whole story but they later on found that police has only submitted charge sheet against Viri Singh and the other accused Attar Singh, Prem Singh, Satyapal and Gajjo who had assisted Viri Singh in committing murder had been made witnesses, hence the complaint is filed. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of complainant, Leeladhar, Ranveer Singh, Lohre and Dr. Gopal Singh and found that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against Attar Singh, Prem Singh, Satyapal and Gajjo for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and, therefore, he took cognizance against these persons for the aforesaid offence. Regarding Viri Singh he mentioned that a trial is already proceeding against him and he has been already committed to Sessions in the case. All the four accused filed revision petition against this order but the same was dismissed. They thereafter filed a miscellaneous petition before this court and submitted that cognizance had been taken in contravention of Section 210 Cr.PC. This petition was also dismissed vide order dated May 12, 1986. Chhittar Singh, complainant, also thereafter filed a revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and submitted that case should also proceed against the accused Viri Singh and the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the Judicial Magistrate to proceed against Viri Singh also. It is against this order that this revision has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the complainant submitted that this is an unfortunate case where the accused Viri Singh has with the assistance of the police officers invented a new story and the accused persons had been made witnesses against him so that in the evidence they could side with him and he could be acquitted of the double murder. It is submitted that two persons lost their lives at the hands of five accused and these five putting their heads together had now found out a device with the assistance of the police so that atleast four of them could escape the punishment. On the basis of such a conspired investigation if cognizance had been taken by the court it would not deprive the complainant to bring the true story before the court and the court in no way can be said to be helpless in doing real justice. It is submitted that it is not a case of twice taking cognizance of the same offence to test a case of placing true facts before the court as against the manipulated one earlier Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. : 1986CriLJ831 ; Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan and Anr. : 1980CriLJ1269 ; and Attar Singh and Ors. v. The State and Anr. 1986 (11) RCr.C 394.