- (1.) Both these appeals arise out of judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 58-DB of 1986. The High Court set aside the conviction of the six respondents who were in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1984. A complaint filed by Harjinder Singh had let to the trial of nine accused in Sessions Cases No. 15 of 1984. The trial court had convicted six and acquitted remaining three accused (A-7, A-8 and A-9).
(2.) The case of the complainant was that Munsha Singh (PW 10) and Dayal Singh (deceased) had pursuant to an agreement of sale taken possession of an agricultural land of village Bhadaur from Ghala Singh (accused) on 19-11-1981. There was a building consisting of 10 rooms in one corner of that land and it was being used for storing agricultural implements and other things connected with cultivation of land. Munsha Singh and Dayal Singh were cultivating that land. However, a dispute was raised by Ghala Singh and Balbir Singh regarding possession of that land. So Munsha Singh and Dayal Singh had moved an application before the District Magistrate, Barnala under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and an order dated 22-4-1983 for attachment of that land was passed and for that purpose Naib Tehsildar, Lal Chand was appointed as a Receiver. Lal Chand was directed to take possession of that land and manage it till passing of the final order. Before he could do so the incident which led to the filing of this case took place on 24-4-1983. On that day, in the evening, complainant, Harjinder Singh (PW 22), Sukhdev Singh (PW 5), Major Singh, Nachhattar Singh, Jit Singh and Nazir Singh were present at Gurudwara Nanaksar to hear recitation of 'Rehras'. The recitation was over at about 8.00 p.m. At that time they saw one harvester combine proceeding towards the land in dispute. They apprehended that Ghala Singh and other followers of Sant Narain Singh might harvest and take away the crop from that land. They, therefore, decided to go to the land and for that purpose were waiting for a vehicle to come. After sometime Dayal Singh came there with his jeep. They all left in that jeep for the land. As they had not seen the policemen who were posted near the Gurudwara Nanaksar they thought that possibly the policemen had gone on a round to the land. So after reaching there they shouted for those policemen but they were not found there. It was a moonlit-night and an electric lamp was also burning near that building. All of a sudden Gurcharan Singh, Karnail Singh, MohinderSingh, Ghala Singh, Daya Singh and Bachan Singh came out of the building armed with rifles, swords and gandasas and attacked them. The complainant received a gun shot injury on his right arm and took shelter in a nearby 'khal' (a water-course). Accused Daya Singh fired at Jit Singh, (deceased), accused Ghala Singh fired at Nazir Singh and Ghala Singh fired at Dayal Singh. They all fell down as a result of the injuries received by them. Accused Bachan Singh and accused Karnail Singh then injured Nachhattar Singh (deceased) with a sword and gandasa. Some of the accused gave sword and gandasa blows to Major Singh (deceased). The accused then returned to that building and then ran away from that palce. He, the complainant, went up to Sukhdev Singh who had also taken shelter in a nearby 'khal'. After ascertaining that five of their companions had already died he and Sukhdev Singh returned to the village leaving the jeep at the place of the occurrence. They went to the Gurudwara where Joginder Singh, Rupinder Singh, Harinder Singh, one Major Singh and Amar Singh were present. He and Sukhdev Singh informed them about the incident. Thereafter all of them went to Bhadaur Police Station. He narrated the occurrence to Sub-Inspector Iqbal Singh, but he did not record his complaint. He made them sit in the court-yard of the police station. In the afternoon he was sent to the Civil Hospital at Bhadaur but as the doctor was not present he was brought back to the police station and was again sent to another hospital on the next day. Instead of recording his complaint the police lodged all of them in a police lock-up and did not allow anybody to meet them. They were produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate on 28-4-1983 and were taken on remand. On 3rd May, 1983 they were remanded to judicial lock-up. While they were in judicial lock-up Munsha Singh (PW 10) had come to see them and he had narrated he entire incident to him. Therefore, on 3-5-1983 Munsha Singh (PW 10) had sent an application to Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur in which all the details regarding the incident were given. He and his companions were released on bail on 3-5-1985. On 1-8-1983, he learnt from one Pritam Singh (PW-8) and Sher Singh (PW-1) that the six accused and Gurdial Singh had caused the deaths of Jit Singh, Dayal Singh, Nazir Singh, Nachhattar Singh and Major Singh and injuries to him in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by Sant Narain Singh and Balibr Singh. As the police had not registered any offence against the accused in spite of the complaint made by him and Munsha Singh, he ultimately filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Barnala on 2-8-1983. In respect of the same incident a case was registered at the Bhadaur Police Station at about 1.30 a.m. as FIR No. 41 on 25-4-1983 on the basis of same information given by Head Constable, Chanan Singh. It was the case of the complainant that the said complaint was recorded by twisting the correct facts and with a view to see that the real culprits who belonged to the group of Sant Narain Singh were fully protected.
(3.) By the time the case instituted upon the complaint of Harjinder Singh could be committed to the Court of Session, the case instituted upon the police report was fixed for recording evidence. Apprehending tha the said Sessions case would be over before the case instituted upon his complaint was committed to the Sessions Court, Harjinder Singh moved an application under Section 482 of the Code to the High Court for staying further proceeding in the Sessions case till the complaint filed by him was proceeded by the learned Magistrate and a committal order was passed. On Feb. 14, 1984, the High Court passed an order to expedite the committal proceedings. The learned Magistrate committed all the nine accused mentioned in the complainant to the Court of Session by his order dated March 30, 1984. On 7-4-1984 Harjinder Singh filed an application before the Sessions Court that as the prosecution versions in the police challan case and the complaint case were conflicting and the number of accused and the prosecution witnesses were also different, a trial of the two cases should not be held together. As a counter blast the accused made an application on 24-4-1984 for consolidating and clubbing both the cases. The learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an order for clubbing the two cases and treat the evidence recorded in one case as evidence in the other case. Aggrieved by that order, Harjinder Singh preferred a revision application to the High Court but the High Court rejected it with some observations. Harjinder Singh, therefore, approached this Court with a grievance that if both the cases were consolidated then the accused were bound to be acquitted as only policemen were cited as prosecution witnesses in the police challan case and they had falsely involved him and his party men and made out a false case of private defence for the real culprits. Upholding his contention this Court held as under : "In the facts and circumstances of this particular case we feel that the proper course to adopt is to direct that the two cases should be tried together by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but not consolidated i.e. the evidence should be recorded separately in both the cases one after the other except to the extent that the witnesses for the prosecution who are common to both the cases be examined in one case and their evidence be read as evidence in the other. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in one case, withhold his judgment and then proceed to record the evidence of the prosecution in the other case. Thereafter he shall proceed to simultaneously dispose of the cases by two separate judgments taking care that the judgment in one case is not based on the evidence recorded in the other case.";