Amarjit Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Prasad, J.—Money knows no relationships is the proverb which find it''s best examples in the business/corporate world through corporate crimes. Present is the one such incident where a real maternal brother had hired assassins to assassinate his two real sibling cousin brothers Ravindra Pal Singh alias Goldie and Surendra Pal Singh alias Bobby both sons of informant Respondent No. 2 Pratipal Singh and got them strangulated to death and then disposed of their bodies. The prayer made in the above two connected revisions filed by Amarjit Singh and Charanjeet Singh are that their summoning order dated 7.7.2004 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, in Criminal Case No. 11806 of 2004, State v. Satbir Singh and others, for offences under Sections 364/302/201/120B, I.P.C., P.S. Govind Nagar, district Kanpur Nagar relating to the said crime be quashed.

The third Criminal Misc. Application No. 3879 of 2006 has been filed by co-accused Satbir Singh alias Goga with the prayer that his trial in the aforesaid Case No. 11806 of 2004, State v. Satbir and others, be directed to be separated and his case be committed to the court of Session''s for trial.

Since all the three cases related with the same criminal case and hence all the three cases are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.

The prelude to the ghastly crime was generated in the rivalry of transport business between the cousin brothers. Informant Respondent No. 2 Pratipal Singh lodged a F.I.R. on 7.5.2004 at 10.45 a.m. as Crime No. 202 of 2004 for offence u/s 364, I.P.C. at P.S. Govind Nagar, district Kanpur Nagar with the allegations that he alongwith his the two sons Surendra Pal Singh alias Bobby and Ravindra Pal Singh alias Goldie carries on transport business under the name and style Param Carrying Corporation. His real nephews (bhanja) Satbir Singh alias Goga and Charanjeet Singh alias Happy both sons of late Buta Singh carries transport business in the name and style Kanpur-Dehri Transport Corporation. Because of business rivalry the aforesaid bhanjas (maternal nephews) nurtured animosity with the sons of the informant and on many earlier occasions there had been tiradic altercations. On 6.5.2004 Satbir Singh aforesaid, his wife Smt. Devendra Kaur, Charanjeet Singh (Revisionist) and his brother-in-law Amarjit Singh (revisionist) invited the informant and other family members including his two sons to their house for a settlement dialogue. On this phone call both the sons of the informant informed other family members regarding the phone call and they went to the house of aforesaid Satbir Singh on their Freedom motorcycle No. U.P. 78 AJ-5194 between 8 and 8.30.p.m. They also carried their mobile phones with them having mobile Nos. 9415481389 and 9839162719. Both the sons Surendra Pal Singh alias Bobby and Ravindra Pal Singh alias Goldie did not return the whole night nor they informed the informant. Next day in the morning informant went to the house of Satbir Singh alias Goga and inquired about his sons who informed him that both of his sons had left in the previous night itself. On further inquiry Satbir Singh, Charanjeet Singh and Amarjit Singh (Both Revisionists) alongwith 3-4 other persons present there started hurling abuses on the informant and Nitin Sood who had accompanied him. Sensing that his two sons had been abducted and murdered that the informant then went to the police station Govind Nagar district Kanpur Nagar and lodged a report regarding elopement and suspected murder of his aforesaid two sons as is mentioned hereinbefore.

Registration of F.I.R. of Crime No. 202 of 2004 engineered the investigation and the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the informant who supported his version of the incident. Thereafter the Investigating Officer made the spot inspection and prepared the site plan. He then went to the house of Satbir Singh but he found it locked. Later on the Investigating Officer arrested Satbir Singh alias Goga from Fazalganj Crossing and then he confessed his guilt and informed the Investigating Officer that he, because of business rivalry and loss in his business because of aforesaid two cousins planned a conspiracy with Mahtab Lula, Mohd. Rizwan, Aziz Ghosi, Raj Faqir, to annihilate Surendra Pal Singh and Ravindra Pal Singh and on that fateful day he alongwith his associates strangulated the two cousin brothers to death after calling them to his house on phone and during commission of the crime his wife Devendra Kaur, brother Charanjeet Singh, his brother-in-law Amarjit Singh (both revisionist) kept on guarding the house and the room and after strangulating them to death he alongwith other socio criminises carried the dead bodies in his car U.P. 78AQ-4343 alongwith the motor cycle of the deceased and disposed of the corpses ahead of Unnao but before Azgain in the bushes on a link road . He also got his car recovered. Thereafter accused Mahtab Lula, Mohd. Rizwan, were arrested and on the disclosure made by the accused persons the corpses of the two deceased were recovered. With further usual investigation the Investigating Officer laid a charge-sheet against accused Satbir Singh, his wife Devendra Kaur, Mahtab Lula, Mohd. Rizwan, Iqbal alias Raju Badey and Salim. It mentioned in the charge-sheet that investigation in respect of Aziz Ghosi is still in the offing. Investigating Officer did not charge-sheet revisionists Amarjit Singh and Charanjeet Singh.

On the charge-sheet Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar took cognizance of the offence and besides the charge-sheeted accused he also summoned the two revisionists Amarjit Singh and Charanjeet Singh vide his impugned order dated 7.7.2004 recording an order that from the perusal of the case diary and statements of witnesses Pratipal Singh, Nitin Sood, Trilok and Satnam Singh and from other evidences contained in the case diary offences under Sections 364/302/201/120B, I.P.C. is also disclosed against the two revisionists as well. It is this order dated 7.7.2004 which is under challenge in the above two revisions.

I have heard Sri Manoj Misra, learned Counsel for the revisionists in support of the two revisions and Sri Shishir Prakash and Sri A.K. Bajpai advocates for the informant Pratipal Singh and Sri Sudhir Agarwal learned A.G.A. in opposition.

It is submitted by Sri Manoj Misra that the order of summoning of the two revisionists is bad in law and the only evidence against revisionist Amarjit Singh is that he was present at the time when the informant had gone to inquire about the elopement of his sons at the house of the accused Satbir Singh alias Goga. He contended that but for the said evidence there is no other evidence against the revisionist Amarjit Singh. He also contended that the revisionist Amarjit Singh is a distant relative being brother-in-law of the accused Charanjeet Singh and therefore he had no motive to commit the murder and participate in the incident. He also contended that the presence of the said revisionist at the time of the incident is not established and thereafter also his presence for disposing of the dead body is also not proved and therefore in so far as the said revisionist Amarjit Singh is concerned there is no evidence against him. He further contended that so far as Charanjeet revisionist is concern there is only evidence that he had opened the door of the house when the two deceased persons reached there. He submitted that there is no evidence for the two revisionists and their summoning order be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for the informant Respondent contrarily submitted that the evidence of the accused clearly indicates that the two revisionist were a privy to the crime and they were socio criminises and therefore they have been rightly summoned by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. They further contended that this is a case of circumstantial nature and therefore the prosecution cannot give direct evidence of the crime as the incident occurred inside the house of the accused and it was the accused who can only testify as to how the two deceased persons were murdered. They contended that the accused Satbir Singh alias Goga has clearly stated that the two revisionists were a party to the crime and they kept on a watch when the two deceased were strangulated to death. They further submitted that the presence of the two revisionists at the place of the incident is well established and therefore it is to be seen at the trial as to whether the presence of the two revisionists is sufficient or not as only the accused were in the knowledge of the complete facts of murder which was unknown to the prosecution side. They further contended that it is case of double murder executed through a hatched up conspiracy was hatched up to murder them and the prosecution must get a chance to prove it''s case and disputed questions of facts should not be decided by this Court u/s 397, Cr. P.C. and the material contained in the case diary is sufficient to summon the two revisionists. They therefore submitted that the two revisions are meritless and deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the contentions raised by the rival sides. The two revisionists are named in the F.I.R. and during investigation also they were named as the persons who were present at the time and at the place were the murder of the two deceased were committed. They also abused the informant when he had gone to inquire about the whereabouts of his two sons who had not returned to the house since previous night. They are also alleged to have guarded the room and the house where the deceased were strangulated to death. In such a view there is enough evidence in the case diary to summon them as accused. It is a case where there is no eye-witness of the murder. The case rests on circumstantial nature. The murder was committed inside the house of the accused. It is for the accused to disclose as to who participated and who did not participate in the murder. Since the co-accused has named the two revisionists Amarjit Singh and Charanjeet Singh also as his socio-criminis there was every justification for the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to summon the two revisionists.

Further it may be remembered that the stage is only u/s 204, Cr. P.C. For summoning any person as an accused there should be only prima facie material in the case diary to proceed against him. What is required u/s 204, Cr. P.C. is that there should be sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused. At this stage it is not required that the evidence should be such that the accused must be convicted. That stage will come only when the trial will be decided finally. At this stage if some material is contained in the case diary giving suspicion of involvement in the case then that is sufficient to summon any person as an accused in a case. Charge can be framed against an accused for committing an offence even on grave suspicion. It is not the law that the charge should be framed only when there is chances of conviction. Moreover it will be seen at the stage of trial where the two revisionist participated in the crime or not? This is a subject-matter of evidence to be led during the trial.

Coming to the contentions raised by Sri Manoj Misra, learned Counsel for the revisionists I am eschewing details deliberation on the same because it may prejudice the case of either side at the stage of trial or even at the stage of Section 227/228, Cr. P.C. for framing of charges but suffice it to say that the contentions of Sri Misra are not wholly correct.

For the reasons inked above I am of the opinion that the impugned order of summoning of the two revisionists Amarjit Singh and Charanjeet Singh dated 7.7.2004 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate district Kanpur Nagar in Crime Number 202 of 2004, State v. Satbir Singh alias Goga and others for offences under Sections 364/302/201/120B, I.P.C., P.S. Govind Nagar, district Kanpur Nagar does not suffer from any infirmity of law or of fact.

Concludingly, the two revisions Criminal Revision No. 3117 of 2004, Amarjit Singh v. State of U.P. and another and Criminal Revision No. 3761 of 2004, Charanjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and another, are meritless and are dismissed. Stay orders dated 21.7.2004 and 25.8.2004 passed by this Court in both the revisions respectively which has been extended from time to time are here by vacated.

So far as Criminal Misc. Application No. 3879 of 2006, Satbir Singh alias Goga v. State, is concerned that same is disposed of with a direction to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to commit the case of the all the accused persons forthwith within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by him and the Session''s Court is directed to expedite the trial in accordance with Section 309, Cr. P.C.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar immediately for his intimation and further action.