Jagninder Singh vs State of Punjab

T.P.S. Mann, J.—Order dated 21.12.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar to the extent of not summoning the Head of the Department of Forensics, Government Medical College, Amritsar on the application filed by the petitioners u/s 311 Cr.P.C. stands challenged by them by filing the present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

The petitioners were tried under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC on the allegations that they had committed the offence of dowry death of Surjit Kaur. The trial of the case ended with the conviction of Jagninder Singh-petitioner u/s 304-B IPC and he was, accordingly, sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years. He was, however, acquitted for the offence u/s 498-A IPC. Manjit Kaur-petitioner was acquitted of both the charges. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, Jagninder Singh-petitioner filed an appeal. The State also preferred appeal against the acquittal of Manjit Kaur-petitioner. The two appeals were decided by this Court on 28.9.2007 when the conviction of Jagninder Singh-petitioner u/s 304-B IPC was upheld but his sentence of imprisonment was reduced from ten years to seven years. The acquittal of Manjit Kaur-petitioner u/s 304-B IPC was set-aside and she was also awarded imprisonment for a period of seven years. Aggrieved of the judgment passed by this Court, both the petitioners filed their respective appeals before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Vide common order dated 23.7.2013, the Hon''ble Supreme Court set-aside the judgment and order passed by the trial Court as well as by this Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court to alter the charge to one u/s 302 IPC. It was also observed that though the evidence was already on record yet if additional evidence was required in the opinion of the trial Court, the parties be permitted to lead the same after the alteration of the charge. The trial Court was, accordingly, directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Post remand, the trial Court charged the petitioners u/s 302 IPC. The case was adjourned for further cross-examination of PW1 Dr. Baldev Singh, who had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Surjit Kaur and PW11 ASI Baldev Singh, the investigating officer. On 20.12.2013, the cross-examination of PW11 ASI Baldev Singh was completed. However, PW1 Dr. Baldev Singh did not appear as he had already left for Canada. On 20.12.2013, the Additional Public Prosecutor filed an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the Head of the Department of Forensics, Government Medical College, Amritsar so as to prove the injuries suffered by deceased-Surjit Kaur at the hands of the petitioners as the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem was not available. Further, the petitioners had right to cross-examine the doctor and, therefore, no prejudice was going to be caused to them if the Head of the Department of Forensics was summoned for just decision of the case. Vide order dated 21.12.2013, the trial Court found no merit in the application filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor u/s 311 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the concerned doctor had already been examined, who had proved the injuries on the dead body of Surjit Kaur. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioners then filed an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the following witnesses:-

(a) Sumit Kumar son of Bakhtawar Lal, proprietor of Tinks, Ready Made Garments, Main Bazar Rahon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District S.B.S. Nagar.

(b) Gurdial Singh son of Tarsem Singh r/o. Bharta Kalan, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District S.B.S. Nagar.

(c) Head of Department of Forensic, Government Medical College, Amritsar to explain the fracture of second and third cervical vertebrae under injury No. 1.

Vide order dated 21.12.2013, the trial Court allowed the application for summoning of Sumit Kumar and Gurdial Singh. However, the request for summoning of Head of Department of Forensics, Government Medical College, Amritsar was declined on the ground that the cross-examination with regard to injury No. 1 had already been conducted by the defence counsel when PW1 Dr. Baldev Singh, who had conducted the post-mortem was examined, who, being an expert witness, had already opined qua injury No. 1.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order as well as the statement (Annexure P-7) of PW1 Dr. Baldev Singh recorded on 23.11.1995 by the trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

It may be noticed that initially the petitioners were charged for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. At that stage the anxiety on the part of the petitioners was to bring material on record to establish that injury No. 1 found on the dead body of Surjit Kaur could result if a person having taken some poisonous material loses consciousness and falls with force against the arm of the cot. Now with the alteration of the charge, the petitioners are required to answer the allegations qua the commission of murder for which they stand charged u/s 302 IPC. It is their case that as PW1 Dr. Baldev Singh is not available, they want to summon the Head of the Department of Forensics to explain the fracture of second and third cervical vertebrae under injury No. 1. Moreover, earlier to the filing of the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners, the Additional Public Prosecutor had also filed an application dated 20.12.2013 so as to summon the Head of the Department of Forensics to prove the injuries suffered by deceased-Surjit Kaur. It is another fact that the said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 21.12.2013 (Annexure P-6). The relief sought by the Additional Public Prosecutor in his application dated 20.12.2013 (Annexure P-4) and by the petitioners in their application dated 21.12.2013 (Annexure P-3) was practically the same as both of them wanted to summon the Head of the Department of Forensics to examine him qua the injuries found on the dead body of Surjit Kaur. It is another thing that against the order dated 21.12.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by the trial Court while dismissing the application of the Additional Public Prosecutor dated 20.12.2013, no petition has been filed before this Court.

Neither of the parties i.e. the petitioners and the State will be prejudice if the Head of the Department of Forensics is summoned for just decision of the case.

Resultantly, the petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to summon the Head of the Department of Forensics, Government Medical College, Amritsar by way of defence evidence. Once, the Head of the Department of Forensics steps into the witness box as a defence witness, he be examined-in-chief by the petitioners whereafter the prosecution would be at liberty to cross-examine him.