Balbir Singh Vs.
State of Punjab & ANR. [2009] INSC 985 (8 May 2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 963 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 3555 of 2007) Balbir Singh ...Appellant Versus
State of Punjab and Anr. ...Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
Challenge
in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court. Respondent No.2 in the present appeal filed a petition
seeking investigation of the cross version in FIR 43 dated 6.2.2006 registered
at Police Station, City Abohar, in relation to the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
the `IPC') and for entrusting the investigation of the same to an independent
agency. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by the
present appellant. The petitioner before the High Court i.e. present respondent
No.2 is the wife of Gaganjit Singh, who had two brothers, namely, Gurdeep Singh
and Gurjit Singh. Though, according to Balbir Singh, first informant, Gurjit
Singh was killed in the emergency ward of Civil Hospital, Abohar, by a group of
people which had come from the Truck Union, yet Gaganjit Singh claimed that his
brother Gurjit Singh was killed by Balbir Singh, first informant and others on
6.2.2006 at 4.30 P.M. when Gaganjit Singh was first attacked and given injuries
at the Truck Union and while being removed to the hospital by Gurjit Singh and
others and had reached in front of the hospital where Balbir Singh was standing
while carrying a pistol in his hand, which he used to fire at Gurjit Singh. As
a result of the same, said Gurjit Singh died. The statement of Gaganjit Singh
was recorded on 7.2.2006 when he was admitted in Civil Hospital, Malout, but in
spite of the same, no action was taken against Balbir Singh and others for the
murder of Gurjit Singh and for causing injuries to Gaganjit Singh. Instead
final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short `Code') was submitted against Gaganjit Singh and Inderjit Singh for the
murder of Baljit Singh.
Therefore, it was
prayed that appropriate legal action be taken into the cross version based on
the statement of Gaganjit Singh and keeping in view the partisan attitude of
the local police which was acting at the instance of local M.L.A., the
investigation of the said cross-version be entrusted to an independent agency.
During investigation
of the case the version given by Gaganjit Singh, the husband of respondent No.2
was found to be false. No injury was received by said Gaganjit at Truck Union,
Abohar. In fact, it was Gaganjit Singh who had caused fire arm injury to Baljit
Singh, brother of the present appellant-complainant of the case. After hearing
the parties the High Court directed as follows:
3 "Although,
the police was not required to register separate FIR into the cross version set
up by Gaganjit Singh but the minimum it could do was to present the entire
investigation before the Court and only then the Court could decide as to which
of the two versions was correct. The police on its own could not decide that
the murder of Gurjit Singh and causing of injuries to Gaganjit Singh was in the
exercise of right of self defence of person by the complainant party. However,
in the given circumstances the Court finds that the police ought to have
registered an FIR against the offenders in relation to the murder of Gurjit
Singh and causing of injuries to Gaganjit Singh so that if the same was to be
later on cancelled, after its due investigation, the police would be required
to submit the cancellation report in the appropriate court and obtain its
order."
3.
It
is the stand of the appellant that the direction issued to register the FIR on
the basis of statements of Gaganjit Singh recorded on 7.2.2006 and proceed with
the case in accordance with law is not sustainable. It is pointed out that in
the FIR 43 of 2006 there was mention of incident as well as the retaliation.
The statement of Gaganjit Singh was recorded on 7.2.2006 wherein he took the
plea that the firing was by the appellant and Gurjit Singh had died. No FIR was
lodged regarding the cross version. Charges have been framed on 15.6.2006. The
complaint was filed by Gaganjit Singh on 21.8.2006. Cognizance has been taken
qua the accusations and not in respect of the controversy.
4.
In
peculiar circumstances, we dispose of the appeal in modification of the
impugned order with the direction that the complaint case shall be taken to its
logical end. It needs no indication that the concerned Court shall deal with
the matter on the basis of evidence laid before it. We make it clear that we
have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.
5.
The
appeal is disposed of accordingly.
..........................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
..........................................J.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
