BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant, praying for quashing of order dated 28.05.2009 (Annexure-P-6), passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, vide which application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., preferred by the petitioner/complainant for permission to place on record the statements recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Gurdev Singh injured/eye witness and Tejwinder Singh injured, which were inadvertently not filed alongwith the police report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and to lead additional evidence stand dismissed.

(2.) AN F.I.R. No. 96 dated 20.08.2008 under Sections 307/326/34 I.P.C., Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, came to be registered against the accused/respondents on a statement made by the petitioner/complainant Balwinder Singh @ Sangat Singh son of Bishan Singh, which was recorded in Civil Hospital, Chamkaur Sahib, wherein intimation was received on 20.08.2008 regarding admission of injured Balwinder Singh in the hospital. On 19.08.2008, injured Balwinder Singh (petitioner/complainant) was declared unfit to make any statement by the Medical Officer. The respondents/accused with an intention to cause death to Balwinder Singh (petitioner/complainant) caused injures on his person, while he was going for a walk on Sirhind Canal in the area of Chamkaur Sahib at about 08:00 P.M. on 19.08.2008, for the reason that the accused/respondents had tried to outrage the modesty of the daughter of his friend, namely, Sadhu Singh, resident of Mohalla Raiwara, Chamkaur Sahib, as the complainant/petitioner helped him. Gurdev Singh son of Hari Singh, a passerby tried to rescue injured Balwinder Singh on hearing the alarm raised by the petitioner/complainant Balwinder Singh. The accused/respondents also caused injuries on the person of Gurdev Singh, and, thereafter, accused/respondents threatened the petitioner/complainant Balwinder Singh and eye witness Gurdev Singh that he had been taught a lesson and now they are going to teach a lesson to his other associate Teja @ Tejwinder Singh as they both had objected to accused/respondents, while misbehaving with Gurjinder daughter of Sadhu Singh, who is a friend of petitioner/complainant Balwinder Singh. Thereafter, the assailants went towards the house of Teja @ Tejwinder Singh, who was also way laid in the street at a short distance of less than 100 yds and grievous injuries were caused to Teja @ Tejwinder Singh on the vital parts of the body with a sharp edged weapon. Teja @ Tejwinder Singh was treated in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education, and Research, Chandigarh, since he had suffered fractures on the vital organs. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements and collected the M.L.Rs./Medical Case Summaries of the injured Balwinder Singh (petitioner/complainant) and Gurdev Singh (eye witness) in the first case diary itself. On completion of investigation of the case, the Station House Officer, Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, submitted police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the accused/respondents under Sections 307/326/34 I.P.C. before the learned Area Magistrate on 18.11.2008. One of the accused, namely, Paramjot Singh @ Popan (respondent No. 2 herein) could not be arrested and he was proceeded against under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. In the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., submitted against the accused/respondents, M.L.Rs. of all the injured alongwith other relevant documents and copy of statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were attached in support of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Inadvertently, copy of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Gurdev Singh and Teja @ Tejwinder Singh, were not attached with the challan report, though, names of these two injured/eye witnesses were mentioned in the list of witnesses at Serial. No. 2 and 3 attached with the police report. Accused/respondent No. 2 Paramjot Singh @ Popan surrendered before the learned Trial Court on 18.11.2009, and he was arrested in the case. Supplementary challan was presented against him and thereafter, the learned Area Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Rupnagar.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , an application for additional evidence under Section 311 Cr.P.C., was submitted by the petitioner/complainant, wherein it was pleaded that the F.I.R. was registered on the statement of Balwinder Singh (petitioner/complainant). In the said statement, it was specifically mentioned that the injuries upon Gurdev Singh and Tejwinder Singh were inflicted by the accused/respondents. At the time of presentation of the challan, the names of Gurdev Singh and Tejwinder Singh, were cited in the list of witnesses being eye witnesses/injured and their medico legal reports were also placed on record. However, inadvertently the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation of eye witnesses/injured, namely, Gurdev Singh and Tejwinder Singh, could not be placed with the challan and this fact came to the knowledge of prosecution at the time of examination of the witnesses. The said statements by mistake, are lying in the police file and the prosecution intends to place the said statements on record file. No prejudice would be caused to the accused/respondents by placing the said statements on record, but in case the application is not allowed, the prosecution will suffer irreparable loss. The said application was opposed by the accused/respondents and the ground taken therein was that the said application was not maintainable and the same has been filed only to fill up the lacuna left by the prosecution. There is no question of inadvertent mistake, as at various stages, the prosecution had taken caution to rectify its mistake, which it fails to do and now at this belated stage, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. could not be allowed. On consideration of the respective submissions made by the parties and their counsel, the learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, proceeded to reject the application preferred by the petitioner/complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 28.05.2009 (Annexure-P-6), which has led to the filing of the present petition by the petitioner/complainant challenging the same.