Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1872 (PNJ)

Gurkirtan Singh v. State of Punjab

2021-12-02

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2021
Judgment : Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. This petition is directed against the impugned order, made on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., by the learned Sessions Judge concerned. 2. In FIR No.157 dated 09.11.2019 lodged at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala, offences constituted under Sections 302, 307, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC and under Sections 25/27/54 Arms Act, are embodied. 3. In the afore FIR the complainant had attributed an incriminatory role to one Bharpur Singh, and, one Labh Singh. Moreover, as is evident from photocopies of the relevant recovery memoes placed on record, they had ensured the recoveries, at their instance, to the investigating officer, of the incriminatory weapons of offences, as became allegedly used by them, in causing injuries upon victim-injured/deceased concerned. 4. However, the investigating officer concerned, proceeded to exclude them, from the array of accused, in his report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. At the time when the afore report was before the learned Committal Court, neither the learned APP concerned, nor the complainant made any protest petition before the learned trial Court concerned, in the investigating officer declining to array the afore, as accused alongwith the other co-accused. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the inquiry, if any, which was conducted by an officer superior to the investigating officer, wherein, the afore became exonerated, is completely out of contours of the relevant statutory provisions, as the investigating officer alone, is competent to investigate, and, to make a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., before the learned Court concerned. The afore made submission, would hold immense vigor before this Court, in case, during the course of holding of an inquiry, by an officer higher in rank, than the investigating officer, and/or immediately subsequent to the latter proceeding, to also in tandem therewith exculpate, the participation of the afore in the FIR supra, rather a petition before this Court, had been filed, hence for change of the investigating team or for a direction being meted to the investigating officer concerned, to upon the makings of lawful directions upon him, hence for further investigations, rather his, not during course thereof, bearing in mind the exculpation, as made vis-a-vis, the afore Labh Singh and Bharpur Singh, rather by any officer higher in rank to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, did not recourse the afore endeavour, and when the afore inertia is coupled, with the fact, that he also did not proceed to file any protest petition, before the learned Committal Court concerned, against the exclusion of afore, in the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate concerned. Therefore, the petition at hand, cannot be, at this stage hence accepted. 6. The additional reason for declining relief, in the petition, is comprised in the factum, that Gurkirtan Singh who has named the afore, in the FIR, as while stepping into the witness box, has only his examination-in-chief attributed an alike role to the afore. However, neither his examination-in-chief is complete nor he has faced the ordeal of a cross-examination by the learned defence counsel. Since only upon a completest recording of the afores’ deposition, it was amenable, for the learned APP concerned, to proceed to, more especially when upon a wholesome reading of his testification, it revealing, that he had neither in his testification, as comprised in his examination-in-chief, had grossly improved upon, his previous statement recorded in writing nor had contradicted his statement occurring in his examination-in-chief, and, whereupon it had utmost credence, rather move an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. However, despite the afores remaining evidently incomplete, the learned APP, has in a hot haste manner, moved the application supra, before the learned trial Judge concerned. Therefore, the apposite application whereon the impugned order was rendered, was pre-mature, and, likewise the impugned order is not amenable for being quashed and set aside. 7. It is stated at the bar by the learned counsel, appearing for the afore Bharpur Singh and Labh Singh, that there are still eye-witnesses, to the occurrence, who are yet to step into the witness box, and, who are to yet unerodingly depose with respect to theirs sighting Labh Singh and Bharpur Singh, at the relevant site of occurrence. 7. It is stated at the bar by the learned counsel, appearing for the afore Bharpur Singh and Labh Singh, that there are still eye-witnesses, to the occurrence, who are yet to step into the witness box, and, who are to yet unerodingly depose with respect to theirs sighting Labh Singh and Bharpur Singh, at the relevant site of occurrence. Obviously, hence only after, the afore stepping into the witness box, and, after the recording of their completest depositions, by the learned trial Judge concerned, besides also, after the stepping into the witness box of witnesses to the recovery memos supra, and,all, making uneroded echoings, with respect to the inculpation of the afore, the learned APP concerned may make any application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Naturally, and, retrietedly when after the completest recordings of the testifications of all supra, there are candid uneroded echoings, vis-a-vis the incriminating participation of the afore, in the relevant offences, thereupon it is open to the learned APP concerned, to move an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., seeking the addings therein, hence alongwith other co-accused, who are facing trial in respect of the afore offences, rather also of Labh Singh and Bharpur Singh. 8. Disposed of.