High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/1692/2022disposed of

Baljinder Singh @ Gaggu v. State Of Punjab And Others

2022-12-20Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRR-1692-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.12.2022 BALJINDER SINGH @ GAGGU

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :

Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARSH BUNGER, J.

CRM-49426-2022 This is an application for placing on record the Inquiry Report dated 17.03.2017 (Annexure P-6) conducted by Superintendent of Police (Investigation), Faridkot.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed as prayed for. Inquiry Report dated 17.03.2017 (Annexure P-6) is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

CRR-1692-2022

! " # $%&

' ( # ''

) '

* # )

## #

,- ./ 0/%012 ! (3%4 # $55%/%& , ( (#

6 #

" #

66-.%& //%012 ! (34 # $5 , (

# 5 2 '

2# (#

6 #

, ' #

- 7

* #" #

, - %5$%512 ! (304 6 #

18 7

+) 4"

(93 %%%/:

' 1(934

# #

# $%&

' ( #

'' - 7

* #

" #' . # #

# $%&

' ( # '' - 7

#''

# # $5 , ( " # $ , ( # 5 2 '

# ' '

* # 9# # $%&

' ( #

" <3

'()*$+

',*$+

-) ""

-'(.-(--/ 2##

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has erred in law and facts in partly dismissing the application under 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of Jaskaran Singh and Lovepreet Singh @ Prince. It is submitted that the petitioner-complainant has specifically named Jaskaran Singh and Lovepreet Singh @ Prince in the FIR and even specific role has been attributed to them. It is contended that at the stage of summoning, the learned trial Court was required to see only the prima facie evidence and the Court was not required to go into the details of the allegations, accordingly, it is submitted that it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to summon Jaskaran Singh and Lovepreet Singh @ Prince as additional accused to face trial.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper book as well as impugned order dated

66- '

" <3 0 !

1)(( 2 + !

3 $4'(&4')--

" 5 #

7-!

! ! 8 &3 7-!

# 5 $

8 0 6 # %

* !

& /

, - %5$%5 12 ! (304

* #" #

* #"

# ##

' 3#' 12 ! (934 " " '

66-

;" ' ' '

* # ' 3#'

<3 9(1(-(71 * 9 !

& :& #

0 !

* !

1;(();(($<* 2 !

3 $4 '(&4')--

" : 5 #

6 7-!

=% & 3

7-!

# 5 $

: %

0 6

# $

8 0 6

* !

& 9 ! 0

/ 9 ' 1(934

' " "

* #

# #

,- "

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh & others v. State of Haryana, 2019 (3) RCR (Criminal) 133, while relying upon its earlier judgment rendered in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 623 held that examination-in-chief would mean "evidence" as per Section 319(1) Cr.P.C., however in the instant case, the only evidence in the form of examination-in-chief of Baljinder Singh is to the effect that Lovepreet Singh @ Prince and Jaskaran Singh gave Lalkara. Apart from Lalkara, no specific role or overt act has been attributed to either Lovepreet Singh @ prince or Jaskaran Singh.

As regards the allegation of 'lalkara' is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh 1992(3) RCR (Crl.) 381, referred to various decisions on this point and observed as under :- " In Fatta v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Lahore 63, it was observed:- " When the prosecution are unable to prove satisfactorily the intention or knowledge of an accused person they generally ascribe to him certain words which he is supposed to have spoken in order to supply the missing proof. This method is more often after adopted in cases in which certain person is sought to be punished for constructive liability as regards the commission of crime of violence. It is highly unlikely that the accused would be so foolish as to proclaim his intentions before committing the attack, as by doing so he was sure to be thwarted by the persons present."

In Garib Singh v. State of Punjab, 1972(3) SCC 418 : AIR 1973 Supreme Court 460, it was observed:- " Allegations of participation by giving lalkaras are sometime; made only to show additional overt acts so as to take in at least five persons and make out the ingredients of an offence under Section 147 IPC against all of them."

In Amar Singh v. State of Haryana, 1974(3) SCC 81 : AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2221, it was observed :- "If the appellant had shouted lalkaras it would be difficult to sustain the conviction."

In Jainul Haque v. State of Bihar 1974(3) SCC 543 : AIR 1974 Supreme Court 45, it was observed:- " The evidence of exhortation is in the very nature of things a weak piece of evidence. There is quite often a tendency to implicate some person in addition to the actual assailant by attributing to that person an exhortation to the assailant to assault the victim."

Considering the totality of circumstances and also the law on the issue regarding summoning of additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence brought on record by way of examination-in-chief of Baljinder Singh cannot be considered sufficient to urge that there is hope or prospect of conviction of Lovepreet Singh @ Prince or Jaskaran Singh, on that basis. Thus, no prima facie finding can be returned on the basis of examination-in-chief of Baljinder Singh, that there is sufficient evidence led before the Court which is stronger than mere probability of their complicity or that the evidence is more than prima facie as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes un-rebutted, would lead to conviction.

Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid conclusion recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot.

In view of the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances, the present revision petition is bereft of any merit and the same is accordingly

dismissed.

All p ' # =

December 20, 2022 (HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No