Rajinder alias Gora vs State of Punjab

M.L. Koul, J.

The complainant Sukhdev Singh got a case registered under Sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 25/27 of the Arms Act on 21.10.1995 at Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda against the petitioners Rajinder, Jagsir and Dhanraj Singh.

It is alleged that on the eventful day the complainant along with his two nephews Bikramjit Singh and Sukhminder Singh had gone to their Rohiwala field for ploughing which is away at a distance of 6 Kilometres from their village. His nephew Sukhminder Singh went to take water on a handpump installed nearby their fields at 11 A.M. when from the cotton field the petitionersaccused appeared and raised a lalkara and each of them was armed with a gun. The alarm raised by them was that they would teach them a lesson by committing murder. They pounced upon Sukhminder Singh and fired three shots at him. The complainant and his other nephew ran away from the place of occurrence and came back after some time and found that the said victim Sukhminder Singh had received three gun shots on his body and as a result of which he was dead.

During the investigation the police found that the petitioners were innocent and some other persons were involved in the commission of the crime. Therefore in the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners were not challaned and a report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was made by the police with a prayer to discharge the petitioners. The police also prepared a complaint under Section 182 Cr.P.C. against Sukhdev Singh and Bikramjit Singh for their prosecution for giving false information to the authority with a view to take action by the police against the petitioners and others.

Now the bail is sought by the petitioners on the ground that even the postmortem report does not support the case of the prosecution. No specific injury is attributed to have been caused by any one of them on the deceased and on some general allegations they have been implicated. It appeared during the investigation that a single shot had been received by the victim and not the three gunshots as alleged by the complainant in the case. The prosecution witnesses Sukhdev Singh and Bikramjit Singh are themselves accused in the case. It is yet to be determined as to who out of these two groups is the actual culprit and prima facie the finding of the police is in favour of the petitioners. No evidence has yet been recorded and the trial is likely to take a long time and therefore the petitioners are entitled to bail.

Objections have been filed by the respondent State and they have admitted that during the investigation it was found that Rajinder Singh, Jagsir Singh, Dhanraj Singh petitioners before this Court including Nachhatar Singh and Jagroop Singh were innocent and therefore an application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. for release of these persons was filed in the Court of Shri M.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda but he declined the same by his order dated 29.11.1995 and a revision filed against that order was also dismissed by Mr. S.S. Tiwana, Sessions Judge, Bathinda.

The petitioners along with other six accused have been charged, by the trial Court. The petitioners have been charged under Sections 120B/302/34 I.P.C. including Nachhatar Singh and Jagroop Singh. The other set of the accused Ranjit Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Bhola Singh and Buta Singh have been charged under Sections 302/201/211 and 202 I.P.C. and a common trial is being faced by all of them.

Once the learned Sessions Judge has prima facie found that the petitioners are connected with the commission of the crime for murder of one Sukhminder Singh, it is immaterial that the report of the police preferred against the petitioners under Section 169 Cr.P.C. has not been taken into consideration. It is the duty of every trial Court upon a report made by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to consider it on the basis of the documents and the evidence collected for the purposes of trial during the investigation of the case. No duty is cast upon the said Court to confirm the report filed under Section 169 Cr.P.C. and if the different view is available on the record of the case, the said Court has to go through all the documents, the evidence recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and all other circumstances of the case to frame a charge against the accused who is alleged to have committed a cognizable offence. Even on suspicion a person connected with the commission of cognizable offence can be charged, not to talk of a case where a murder has taken place and the names of the accused and the part played by them in the occurrence has been mentioned in the first information report. The duty of the prosecution is only to investigate the matter and collect evidence for the purposes of trial. It is the duty of the trial Court to sift and discuss the evidence produced before him by the prosecution to find out whether the accused are guilty of an offence or not. For the purpose of charge, the trial Court has to find out prima facie whether the accused is connected with the crime or not and even on suspicion anybody being associated with the commission of the crime can be charge sheeted by the Court.

The petitioners had preferred a Criminal Misc. No. 335M of 1996 for bail which was dismissed by one of the learned Coordinate Benches of this Court holding that no case is made out for giving concession of bail to the petitioners. The petitioners stand chargesheeted before the trial Court and this Court at the moment is not in a position to take a view different than the trial Court who has charged the accused for various offences including murder.

It has been held by the Apex Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, 1995(3) RCR 700 that submitting of the report to the Court recommending the discharge of the accused by the police does not bound down the Court by the conclusions arrived at by the police. The Court has to exercise its judicial discretion and find out from the record available with him as to whether some cognizable offence was made out against the accused or not.

As the trial Court has chargesheeted the petitioners for the commission of an offence of murder, therefore, no reasons were required to be recorded by him for he has not discharged the accused. Hence bail application is rejected. However, the petitioners are at liberty to move a fresh bail application before the Sessions Judge after some evidence is recorded and it is found that they are not connected with the commission of the crime.