Criminal Misc. No.M.8648 of 2009 v. State of Punjab & Ors.

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. A.G. Punjab. K.C.PURI, J. By this common order, I intend to dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M.8648 of 2009, filed by the petitioner for handing over investigation Criminal Misc. No.M.8648 of 2009 2 to an independent agency and Criminal Misc. No.M.13175 of 2009 filed by Rachna Rani under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, as these relate to the same incident. For convenience, facts are being taken from Criminal Misc. No.M.8648 of 2009. The Criminal Misc.No.M.8648 of 2009 has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in short – Cr.P.C.) for handing over the investigation regarding murder of the sister of the petitioner Smt. Hardeep Kaur by her husband Sarabjit Singh to an independent agency in case FIR No. 202 dated 13.12.2008 under Sections 302/201/120-B/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station City Malout, District Muktsar. The law was set in motion on statement of Surjit Singh, who has stated that he is Sarpanch of village Katora. He has four sisters. The eldest sister Chhinderpal Kaur wife of Paramjit Singh is residing in America. Younger to her namely, Prabhjeet Kaur wife of Rachhpal Singh is residing at Karanpur Kheri, younger to her namely, Manjit Kaur wife of Paramjit Singh Koli is residing at Abohar and youngest sister namely, Hardeep Kaur wife of Sarabjit Singh resident of Sarawa Bokla, at present is residing along with his family members at Preet Nagar. Hardeep Kaur has one son namely, Sukhmandeep Singh aged about 15 years and one daughter namely Harmandeep Kaur, aged about 13 years. He is the only brother of his sisters. On 13.12.2008, at 6.00 a.m., his Bhanja (sister’s son) had told him on the telephone of his cousin brother (uncle’s son) Harpartap Singh last night his Massi (mother’s sister) Hardeep Kaur had died due to heart attack. He alongwith Pippal Singh son of Basan Singh, Criminal Misc. No.M.8648 of 2009 3 Surjit Singh son of Mula Singh, Gurmeet Singh son of Inder Singh all residents of Katora and his family and relatives reached at Malout. Then they came to know that his sister had been taken from Malout to Saranwa Bokla. Then at about 11.00 a.m., they reached Sarawan Botla. Then after removing cloth from his sister’s mouth, he saw that two fire shots were present on her face. He smelt suspicion in his sister’s death. Then he enquired about it and came to know that his brother-in-law (sister’s husband) Sarabjit Singh had killed his sister Hardeep Kaur with his pistol. The cause of enmity is that Sarabjit Singh had illicit relations with Rachna @ Harpreet Kaur Panditani resident of Khadur, Police Station Jira, who at present is residing at Muktsar. She often used to visit their house and many times Sarabjit Singh had accompanied Harpreet Kaur to Muktsar. Due to which, there always remained quarrel between Hardeep Kaur and Sarabjit Singh. A night before 13.12.2008, Sarabjit Singh came late, then his sister had asked him the reason of coming late, then Sarabjit Singh had murdered his sister Hardeep Kaur by firing a shot with his 32 bore pistol while she was lying on bed in his house at Malout. Sarabjit Singh had murdered his sister Hardeep Kaur in connivance with Harpreet Kaur and in order to hide his offence, by taking corpus of his sister and putting in his car Icon and taking it to Dhani Sarawan Botla, removing the blood stained clothes and wore new clothes and as there was blood on her head, he washed it. Complainant alongwith Pippal Singh and Surjit Singh by leaving family members and relatives there were going towards police to get lodged a report. Statement has been got recorded. From the above statement, an offence under Sections 302/201/120-B/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Criminal Misc. No.M.8648 of 2009 4 Act is made out. The above statement vide case diary is being sent to Police Station against Sarabjit Singh and Rachna @ Harpreet Kaur above through C. Mangal Singh 137. After registration of the case, investigation commenced. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the due to the political influence Gurnam Singh, former Sarpanch of the village and local leader of the Shiromani Akali Dal, Gurnam Singh, Sarpanch, who are close confidants of Dayal Singh Kolyanwali, Member Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, the police did not arrest Harpreet Kaur alias Rachana and those persons, who were involved in destroying the evidence of murder. The police is also dilly-dallying and prolonging the investigation only to facilitate the bail of accused Sarabjit Singh under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. It has been proclaimed that the FIR is likely to be got cancelled due to the influence of Gurnam Singh and said Dayal Singh. The petitioner has come to know that efforts are being made to cancel the above said FIR under political pressure. On notice, respondents appeared and filed written reply and took up preliminary objections that the present petition has become infructuous because on completion the investigation, challan under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. under Sections 302/201/120-B/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act has been presented in the Court of Illaka Magistrate at Malout on 3.3.2009 and later on further investigation was also conducted with the prior permission of the Illaka Magistrate and a supplement challan under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. under Sections 460, 457, 380, 511 IPC and Section 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act was also filed before the Illaka Magistrate at Criminal Misc. No.M.8648 of 2009 5 Malout in case FIR No. 202 dated 13.12.2008 of Police Station City Malout. The petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition as investigation of the present case is conducted by competent police officers in a very free and fair manner. Denying other averments, respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The main grouse raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the police is in hand in glove with the accused and on that account report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. has been submitted by the police. It is contended that challan under Section 173(3) Cr.P.C. was presented in which the accused were exonerated on 3.3.2009. The application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for permission to further investigate the matter was filed on

7.3.2009, which was allowed on the same day. The second challan was prepared on 10.3.2009. The question arises whether the above said ground is sufficient to order further investigation more so when charge has been framed against the accused. The answer to that question is in negative. The learned trial Court has already considered this aspect of the case vide order dated 30.4.2009 vide which charge under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 511 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act has been ordered to be framed against the accused. The concluding portion of the order is reproduced as under :- “Effort was made by accused to conceal the factum of her murder as she was taken away from her Criminal Misc. No.M.8648 of 2009 6 house at Malout to Dhani Sarwan Bodla for the purpose of cremation. She was also taken to hospital in car, but when the occupants of the car came to know that she is dead, they sped awary immediately in their car as informed by Dr. Rakesh Goyal, M.O. Civil Hospital, Malout to SHO PS City Malout in his letter dated

12.12.2008 dispatched vide No. 794. Moreover, it is the case of the accused that Hardip Kaur was fired upon with his licensed pistol on head. During his custodial interrogation, accused suffered disclosure statement on

18.12.2008 u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act and got recovered by lady's suit of Hardip Kaur, blue in colour smeared with blood, one pillow white in colour smeared with blood, one bed sheet red and pink in colour smeared with blood from the store of the residential house of Sarabjit Singh which was also parcelled and taken into police possession. The crime is committed in the house of accused. Without information of police effort was made to cremate the dead body of Hardip Kaur deceased. Thorough investigation was conducted as discussed in para No. 2 and 3 of this order after which the police came to conclusion that offence is committed by accused. Use of licensed weapon of accused in the commission of crime, concealment of clothes smeared with blood, of deceased and bedding, recovery of these on the disclosure Criminal Misc. No.M.8648 of 2009 7 statement of accused, effort to cremate the dead body of Hardip Kaur deceased without information to police are factors which raise accusing finger towards accused. The subsequent certificate of innocence to accused by way of submitting report under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. by the police is an effort to circumvent the course of law which is to take, after presentation of report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. only to favour the accused. The trial Court has already rejected the report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., vide which the accused was declared innocent and charge has been ordered to be framed against him. One of the other question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the police has manipulated regarding the number of fires. It is submitted that only two fires were used by the accused which correspond to the dead body of the deceased. It is contended that other four fires have been manipulated to create the evidence of innocence of Sarabjit. It is contended that matter be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, who shall find out the police official guilty of creating the evidence of four more fires from the licenced pistol of Sarabjit Singh. I have considered the said submission but the same does not cut ice before me. From the very beginning six empty cartridges have been recovered and those have been sent for analysis. So, I am of the considered view, at this stage, that no useful purpose will be served for ordering further investigation. More so, when accused Sarabjit Singh has been charge Criminal Misc. No.M.8648 of 2009 8 sheeted under Sections 302, 201, 511 of the IPC and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and the co-accused has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to stand trial. However, the prosecution is at liberty to pray the trial Court for additional evidence and the trial Court shall consider that evidence. Needless to say the Courts are meant to advance the cause of justice and to take grain out of the heap of chaff. The trial Court shall decide the case in accordance with the evidence produced before it and without being influenced by the observations made by this court referred to above by the decision of the present petition. Consequently, Criminal Misc. No.M.8648 of 2009 is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. Criminal Misc. No.M.13175 of 2009. The petitioner has stated to have join the investigation. So, in these circumstances, the order dated 30.9.2009 is made absolute. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. December 02 , 2010 ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE