Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2006 (PNJ)

Roshan Lal v. State Of Haryana

2007-11-16

S.S.SARON

body2007
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 47499-M of 2007 filed by Roshan Lal and Karambir @ Bhirda and Crl. Misc. No. 47513-M of 2007 filed by Jora Singh. 3. The FIR for the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC has been registered on account of the death of Phool Singh. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Dholi wife of the deceased-Phool Singh. Two statements of the complainant-Dholi were recorded. Initially, a statement was recorded on 15.06.2006. Thereafter, she gave a supplementary statement on 20.06.2006 in which she inter alia stated that she had been inquiring about the cause of death of her husband and on 20.06.2006, Chander son of Phool Chand who is the uncle of her husband told her that on 14.06.2006 i.e. on the day of occurrence, he had seen that Dharma, Karambir @ Bhirda and Baru son of Mange Ram were quarreling with Phool Singh (deceased). Baru gave fist blows on Phool Singh whereas Jora Singh and Roshan Lal who were armed with dandas were giving danda and fist blows on Phool Singh. 4. It may be noticed that during examination of Dholi as PW1 during trial, she did not support this version and was declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor. Even Chander son of Phool Chand, who had stated regarding the injuries caused by the accused to Phool Singh, while appearing as PW, has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Besides, Baru who caused fist blows has been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 25.05.2007 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 19986-M of 2007. 5. In the circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either side, it may be appropriately noticed that the evidence that has been led by the Prosecution is to be considered and gone into by the learned trial Court. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to comment one way or the other on the same at this stage. Suffice to say that so far the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case set up by the prosecution. Besides, Baru a co-accused of the petitioners has been granted the concession of bail. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to comment one way or the other on the same at this stage. Suffice to say that so far the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case set up by the prosecution. Besides, Baru a co-accused of the petitioners has been granted the concession of bail. The earlier application filed by the petitioners for grant of bail was dismissed as it was submitted by the State counsel on instructions from Head Constable Sadhu Ram that prosecution had examined 22 PWs in the case. However, as on date it is submitted by the learned State counsel that in fact only 9 PWs have been examined. The earlier statement it is submitted was made due to a misreading of the file by Head Constable Sadhu Ram. In any case, written reply had been sought by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar with regard to the said statement that was made by the State counsel on instructions from Head Constable Sadhu Ram. Therefore, it would be proper to leave the matter to be considered and dealt with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. However, the case is not at its fag end as was observed while disposing of the earlier Crl. Misc. No. 38435-M of 2007 filed by Roshan Lai. 6. In the circumstances, the respective petitioners in the case i.e. Roshan Lai and Karambir @ Bhirda in Crl. Misc. No. 47499-M of 2007 and Jora Singh in Crl. Misc. No. 47513-M of 2007 on their furnishing personal bonds and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar shall be admitted to bail. 7. The criminal miscellaneous petitions are accordingly disposed of.