Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 603 (PNJ)

Jasbir Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-05-29

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Petitioners, Jasbir Singh and Kuldip Singh, seek quashing of report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-1) arising out of FIR No. 9 dated 6.1.1983 registered under Sections 333/353/332/148/149 I.P.C. with Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar, mainly on the ground that their co-accused who had faced trial in sessions case No. 15 of 1983 decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, on 16.12.1993 had been acquitted and the petitioners who have been declared as proclaimed offenders in the said case be not forced to undergo trial, the same being a futile exercise because the prosecution had already failed to bring home the guilt to their co- accused. 2. As per prosecution version, on 6.1.1983 ASI Jarnail Singh along with Constable Nirmal Singh was present at Bus Stand Goraya. At that time, Vijay Kumar and Hari Singh met them. Vijay Kumar made a statement before them that on that day at about 3.30 P.M. they were proceeding from Goraya to Rurka Kalan in Bus No. PUP-2502 driven by Hari Singh. When they reached near Canal minor in the area of Boparai, seven persons namely, Gurdeep Singh, Kuldip Singh (petitioner No. 2), Rajinder Singh, Balhar Singh, Gurmit Singh, Jasbir Singh (petitioner No. 1) and Balbir Kumar came on motor-cycles. They dragged Vijay Kumar out of the bus and started beating him as a consequence of which he suffered injuries on hips and arms. In the meanwhile, Hari Singh came down from the bus in order to rescue Vijay Kumar. One of the assailants was armed with a Dang and he gave two dang blows to Hari Singh. Vijay Kumar and Hari Singh were then saved by the passengers travelling in the bus. Accused Gurdeep Singh alias Deepa and another accused belonging to village Chachrari were identified. With regard to the remaining accused, identification mark was given in the report lodged. The motive for the said occurrence given is that on 31.12.1982, Vijay Kumar had an altercation with Deepa accused. Though the matter was compromised but still the accused had chosen to settle scores with Vijay Kumar. During the course of investigation, supplementary statement of Vijay Kumar was recorded who named all the accused persons and attributed injuries on the person of Hari Singh to Gurdip Singh. Vijay Kumar also stated that a sum of Rs. Though the matter was compromised but still the accused had chosen to settle scores with Vijay Kumar. During the course of investigation, supplementary statement of Vijay Kumar was recorded who named all the accused persons and attributed injuries on the person of Hari Singh to Gurdip Singh. Vijay Kumar also stated that a sum of Rs. 565.35 carried by him in a bag were also taken away by the accused persons. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed in Court. As Jasbir Singh and Kuldip Singh could not be arrested they were declared proclaimed offenders while the remaining accused faced trial. During the course of trial, prosecution examined five witnesses, namely, Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Brij Bhushan, Dr. Davinder Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Hari Singh to connect the accused with the crime. As the material witnesses Vijay Kumar and Hari Singh had not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to identity of the accused who had faced trial, the statements of accused were not recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they were acquitted of the charge by the Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 16.12.1983. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of above-noted circumstances has contended before me that the petitioners should not be made to face trial in respect of the afore-said offences because of acquittal of their co-accused, noticed above. He drew strength from the observations in judgment reported as Gurpreet Singh alias Khinder v. State of Punjab, 1995(2) RCR(Criminal) 127. In that case, the Court took notice of the fact that the evidence adduced by the prosecution against the accused who had sought quashing of the proceedings pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in pursuance to FIR No. 128 dated 12.4.1992 in which the petitioners had been declared proclaimed offenders and as the prosecution had failed to prove the case against Parminder Singh who had faced trial and came to the conclusion that the production of the same evidence all over again would result in wate of Courts time and the result would be the same. Resultantly, proceedings pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge in pursuance to FIR No. 128 dated 12.4.1992 registered with Police Station Sadar, Amritsar, were quashed. 4. It is manifest from the above reported judgment that quashing has been ordered on the basis of the facts of that case. Resultantly, proceedings pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge in pursuance to FIR No. 128 dated 12.4.1992 registered with Police Station Sadar, Amritsar, were quashed. 4. It is manifest from the above reported judgment that quashing has been ordered on the basis of the facts of that case. Moreover, the other legal aspect which cannot be ignored is that petitioners-accused had been declared proclaimed offenders and the evidence of prosecution witnesses which was recorded in their absence, was taken to have been recorded in terms of provisions of Section 299 Cr.P.C. That statements of witnesses in absence of petitioners-accused who had absconded at the time of trial, cannot be used qua them and they have to face trial. Those statements can only be taken into account against the accused who have been subsequently arrested only if any of those witnesses had died during that time. 5. The fundamentals on which a criminal justice system is based is that the persons who have committed the crime and against whom accusations appear to be well-founded during investigation of the case, must face trial. The person who absconds, escapes and keeps himself away from the arms of law cannot be given undue benefit or advantage or permitted to defeat the law in this manner. One cannot ignore that an absconder intentionally makes himself inaccessible to the process of law. If the prayer of the petitioners-accused is accepted, that would tantamount to rendering the criminal justice system at the whims and mercy of the absconding accused. That can never be the intention of law. Therefore, the statements of the witnesses recorded during trial of the case against the accused, cannot be taken into consideration because of the limitation laid down in Section 299 of the Code. It would be pre-mature to presume that the witnesses to be examined against the petitioners-accused would render the same version as was given by them against the co-accused. Such conclusions would be mere surmises and conjectures which has no support of law. Moreover, whatever delay has occurred, that is attributable to the accused themselves and they cannot be permitted to escape trial of the case on this count. 6. For invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the Code, there are well settled para-meters. Such conclusions would be mere surmises and conjectures which has no support of law. Moreover, whatever delay has occurred, that is attributable to the accused themselves and they cannot be permitted to escape trial of the case on this count. 6. For invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the Code, there are well settled para-meters. The Court will intervene only if on facts, it is made out that the process of law is being misused or would result in miscarriage of justice. Present is not a case where no accusations have been made against the petitioners-accused in the report lodged by the complainant with the police. Prima-facie participation of the petitioners- accused in the commission of crime is clearly spelt out from the evidence collected. If the contention of the counsel for the petitioners is accepted, that would mean accepting the statements of witnesses recorded in absence of the petitioners-accused, which course is not permissible under the law. Consequently, no case for interference by this court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. 7. Nor the reasons recorded above, the petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.