Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 367 (PNJ)

Pritam Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-03-30

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. The second-respondent- Natha Singh lodged a complaint against the petitioner - Pritam Singh and two others under sections 302, 120-B and 34 I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla (Complaint No. 33 of 10.11.1995). The material allegations found therein are as follows: 2. Santa Singh, Chand Singh, Jangir Singh, Amar Singh and Sarwan Singh are brothers. Complainant-Natha Singh is the son of above said Chand Singh, while Pritam Singh (Petitioner-herein) is the son of the above said Santa Singh. Sarwan Singh was unmarried and issueless. He was killed by the petitioners and his co-accused. Sarwan Singh had some lands. Petitioner-Pritam Singh was seen by Gurdev Singh purchasing insecticides from a shop. When Gurdev Singh asked him as to why he was purchasing this, Pritam Singh told him that he will tell him about the purchase later on. Petitioner-Pritam Singh also told Gurdev Singh that Sarwan Singh was to give land to the accused. The accused have got executed a Will regarding the land of Sarwan Singh in their favour forcibly, but still they had no confidence in Sarwan Singh as to whether he will give the land to the accused or not. 3. On the night between 10/11.7.1993 at about 7/8 p.m. the complainant, his son-Gurdip Singh and Gurdev Singh were present in their house. Sarwan Singh called complainant-Natha Singh. When Natha Singh, his son Gurdip Singh and his friend Kartar Singh reached near deceased-Sarwan Singh, he told that accused had given him something else instead of medicine. Sarwan Singh apprehended that the accused had given him poison instead of medicine, and asked complainant-Natha Singh to take him to the Hospital. Since Sarwan Singh was detained in a room and the door of the room was closed by the accused, complainant-Natha Singh was helpless, and could not take Sarwan Singh to the Hospital. On 11.7.1993, the complainant came to know that Sarwan Singh had died. The complainant went to the police Post Kalyan and gave a report, on which F.I.R. No. 84 dated 31.12.1993 was registered. A.S.I. Tarsem Lal reached the spot and took the body of Sarwan Singh to Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, where post-mortem examination was done. The report of the chemical examiner showed that Sarwan Singh had died due to poison. But, the police did not take any action. A.S.I. Tarsem Lal reached the spot and took the body of Sarwan Singh to Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, where post-mortem examination was done. The report of the chemical examiner showed that Sarwan Singh had died due to poison. But, the police did not take any action. On the basis of the complaint, after examination of the witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malrekotla, observed that there are grounds to proceed against the accused under sections 302/120-B, and 34 I.P.C. and, therefore, summoned the petitioner and others by issuing available warrants. 4. The Petitioner-Pritam Singh approached the Sessions Court, Sangrur, for bail in anticipation of arrest, but, his petition was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur. That is why the petitioner has approached this Court under section 438 Cr.P.C. for the same relief. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the report lodged by the complainant - Natha Singh, the Police after investigation had sent a report under section 173 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the report on 20.3.1994, and this complaint has been filed on 10.11.1995 after lapse of one year and eight months. In the earlier report given by Natha Singh to the Police, he had only stated that he came to know about death of Sarwan Singh on the next day i.e. 11.7.93 only and that he had a doubt against Pritam Singh regarding the death of Sarwan Singh. He had doubted that Sarwan Singh may have been killed by giving him poison. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that now there is vast improvement in the complaint wherein complainant- Natha Singh has stated that even in the night of 10.7.1993 Sarwan Singh had called him and told him that petitioner - Pritam Singh and others had given him poison instead of medicine, and even wanted him to be taken to the hospital. It is alleged that Sarwan Singh could not be taken to the hospital as he was detained in a room which was closed by the accused. It is alleged that Sarwan Singh could not be taken to the hospital as he was detained in a room which was closed by the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if that was true, the complainant would have immediately gone to the police station on the night of 10.7.1993 itself to give a complaint, but, had not done so, whereas, he had given the complaint to the police only on 11.7.1993 expressing his apprehensions against petitioner-Pritam Singh. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that organophosphours, which was found in the viscera of Pritam Singh, is such a substance which cannot be given to a person as if it was medicine. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the rejection of the bail application filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is likely to tamper with the evidence cannot at all be accepted in view of the long lapse of time from the date of death of Sarwan Singh in the year 1993 during which the petitioners are not even alleged to have attempted to do so. But, the learned counsel for the complainant contends that even in the FIR Pritam Singh has been suspected, and that the complainant had not been given any notice about the cancellation of the report given by the police. He also contends that one witness has seen the petitioner purchasing the poison and that the deceased had also told the complainant about the petitioner and others giving him something else instead of medicine and apprehending that he. had been given poison. 8. But, taking into consideration the arguments advanced by both the sides but, at the same time without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 9. Petition allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the petitioner on the allegation found in complaint No. 33 of 10.11.1995-Natha Singh v. Pritam Singh and others mentioned in this petition, the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/ Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla. However, he shall abide by the provisions of section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Bail allowed.