Nirmal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and another

Singh and Aman Deep Kaur. Soon after the lodging of First Information Report, considering the seriousness of injuries of aforementioned six persons, Section 307 of IPC was enhanced. This Court does not want to burden this short judgment by mentioning the injury reports of all these six persons but feels it sufficient to hold that all these six persons received serious 2 injuries on the vital parts of their bodies viz. forehead and parietal region. Accused Sohan Singh and others rushed up to this Court by way of filing WPCRL Nos. 991 and 992 of 2012 seeking arrest stay but taking note of the injuries inflicted on the victims both petitions were found bereft of merits and the same were dismissed at the threshold. One of the accused persons namely Amrendra Singh surrendered in the court of Magistrate and his bail application was rejected upto the Court of Session for all the offences including Section 307 IPC. Then, he moved bail application no. 1368 of 2012 before this Court and the Court held that looking to the seriousness of the injuries caused to several persons by the accused in the alleged beating, this Court was not propensus to grant bail instantly without calling counter affidavit of the State. While this bail application of Amrendra Singh was pending before this Court, it appears that accused persons managed the Investigating Officer for removing Section 307 IPC, which was enhanced subsequently considering the nature of injuries of victims. One of the accused persons surrendered and was granted bail by the same Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, who had rejected the bail application of co-accused Amrendra Singh earlier just a couple of days ago. In this changed favourable scenario, Jarnail Singh and Sohan Singh too surrendered in the court of same Additional Judicial Magistrate, which was presided by Ms. Jyotsna, in connection with FIR no. 99 of 2012 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC. Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate without mentioning any reason also granted bail to Jarnail Singh and Sohan Singh. It would be pertinent to quote the order to show its superficial non speaking nature. 3 Then, further the bail application of Amrendra Singh pending before this Court was also withdrawn from the High Court and the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that instantly all the accused persons are on bail. The Magistrate should have been mindful at this juncture that she had rejected the bail application of co-accused Amrendra Singh, as stated above. This fact also appears to have either escaped from the notice of Magistrate that Section 307 IPC was enhanced after taking note of the seriousness of injuries of six persons or she ignored the same for the reasons best known to her. This way, what the accused person could not get done from the High Court, became scrupulously successful in securing to get done from the level of Additional Judicial Magistrate. 4 It further seems that it was not brought to the notice of the Magistrate that gravity of the offence was assessed to be of Section 307 IPC looking to the seriousness of injuries of six victims or even otherwise, if it was highlighted that enhanced / added gravity had been reduced by deleting the Section 307 IPC by Investigating Officer (obviously at his whims and for the reasons best known to him) then the Magistrate was unwantedly swayed by this divulgence and granted the bail to co-accused persons without assigning any reason much less speaking one. It is quite silent and sedentary an order. This Court takes exception of the oblivious approach of the court of Magistrate and expresses serious concern to the startling manner of her doing judicial work. The District Judge will look into the matter to ensure that such lapses are not recurred by the Magistrates and to caution them for future in monthly meeting. This Court leaves it upon the discretion of District Judge that if he thinks so desirable, may call upon the Judicial Magistrate to explain the lapse in writing and to take any suitable action in this regard. The District Judge may also bring into the notice of Senior Superintendent of Police in Monitory Cell Meeting regarding the whimsical deleting Section 307 I.P.C. in order to facilitate the granting of bail to the accused persons by the Magistrate Court itself. Besides, respondent no. 2 Sarvjeet Singh, a close relative of accused persons in FIR no. 99 of 2012, filed a criminal case no. 639 of 2012 against Nirmal Singh and his family members implicating them for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 363, 504, 506 IPC narrating the incident alleged to have been occurred on 08.10.2012 at 06.30 p.m. in the same village Pratappur. He enclosed the injury reports of 5 Sohan Singh, Jarnail Singh (both accused in FIR no. 99 of 2012). Learned Magistrate by order dated 20.11.2012 has taken cognizance and asked Manjeet Singh and five others to stand trial for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 365 IPC. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has argued that after the incident, Jarnail Singh and Sohan Singh had also sustained injuries and they were medically examined in the Government Hospital. Injury report of Sohan Singh reads thus: (cid:147)i. 3 punctured wound at the back side shown below size 0.5 cm. X 0.2 cm. superficial tissue pierced. Needs X ray as H/O alleged gunshot. No blacking tattooing present. No fresh bleeding. ii. Contusion at medial end of left shoulder cherry red colour. Size 5-6 cm X 3.2 cm.(cid:148) Injury report of Jarnail Singh reads as under: (cid:147)i. Punctured wound superficial tissue deep at medial side of right arm. Size 0.5 cm. X 0.2 cm. No fresh bleeding. ii. Punctured wound at lat. and above to right nipple in range of right nipple. Size 0.7 cm. X 0.2 cm. No fresh bleeding. Note Above two injuries have H/O gunshot. No blackening & tattooing present. Needs expert opinion from Radiologist. iii. Wound at lt. side arm out lat (slightly) alleged I.W. but margins are not that much sharp no fresh bleeding, clotted blood found. Difficult differentiate between I.W. and L.W.(cid:148) 6 All the injuries were of ‰ to 1 day old than

09.10.2012 at 07.25 p.m. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has also shown X-ray report of Sohan Singh issued by the Radiologist of District Hospital, Udham Singh Nagar, which reads as under: (cid:147)Multiple radio opaque shadows, multiple in density seen. No finely injury seen.(cid:148) Having a meticulous glance upon the time duration opined by doctor, the injuries were inflicted at any time running back since 07.25 a.m. of 09.10.2012, stretchable to the maximum of 07.25 p.m. of 08.10.2012 while the incident allegedly occurred even further an hour before viz. 06.30 p.m. of 08.10.2012. It is enough to manifest that the injuries were self inflicted just to prepare a base to file a counter case / complaint in order to balance a genuine FIR. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that all these injury reports are doctored by these persons and Medical Officer was pressed as not to express his opinion unfolding the falsity of the above noted injuries. This instant complaint is a mischievous and nefarious attempt on the part of respondent no. 2 just to settle a balance. This Court further feels that if such complaints are allowed to be sustained, then it would amount to travesty of justice. In the above conspectus, this petition is allowed. Impugned summoning order dated 20.11.2012 and entire proceedings of criminal case no. 639 of 2012 (Sarvjeet Singh Vs. Manjeet Singh and others) pending in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed lock, stock and barrel. 7 Registry is directed to send the copy of this verdict to District Judge, U.S. Nagar for necessary action at his end, as asked here in above. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 24.12.2012 SKS 8