Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdev Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 October, 2021
CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M) and CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision-11.10.2021
1. CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M)
Gurdev Singh and others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
2. CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M)
Gurdev Singh and others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present: Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Divij Datt, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Chaman Lal Pawar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. G.S. Lali, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
[1]. Vide this common order, CRR No.972 of 2021 titled
Gurdev Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and CRM-M No.37521
of 2021 titled Gurdev Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab are
being disposed of.
[2]. In CRR No.972 of 2021, the petitioners have assailed the
order dated 19.08.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Sangrur, whereby petitioners have been summoned under Section
319 Cr.P.C to face trial along with main accused Gagandep Singh.
1 of 15
CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M) and CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M) 2
[3]. CRM-M No.37521 of 2021 has been filed by the
petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail in view of their summoning
under Section 319 Cr.P.C by the trial Court.
[4]. Brief facts of the case are necessary to be mentioned.
FIR was registered on the statement of Jaswant Singh with the
allegations that on 08.06.2020, accused Gagandeep Singh
along with others started demolishing the 'Wat' of the field,
where the complainant was already working along with Jarnail
Singh and Jeet Singh @ Jeeta. When the complainant saw the
accused persons demolishing the 'Wat', then the complainant
went near them in order to restrain them. The brother of the
complainant also came there from the house as their house is
situated nearby the fields. Complainant party stopped the
accused party from demolishing the 'Wat'. Thereafter, the
accused went to their respective homes. The brother of the
complainant namely Beant Singh went to Longowal for taking
domestic goods and the complainant remained in the fields for
doing work with the labourers. At about 2:45 PM, Gagandeep
Singh, Harjit Singh and Gurdev Singh came there on a tractor,
which was fitted with ploughs. The tractor was being driven by
Gagandeep Singh. Harjit Singh and Gurdev Singh were sitting
on the sides. Gagandeep Singh brought the tractor near to the
complainant and rotated the same on the side of the
complainant. Complainant tried to save himself, but a plough
2 of 15
CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M) and CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M) 3
pierced into his right thigh. Gagandeep Singh kept on driving
the tractor and took two rounds of the field. The complainant fell
down in the field and the plough came out of his thigh with flesh.
When the complainant was lying in the field, Gagandeep Singh
lifted the ploughs up and again put the same on the
complainant and plough hit on the left foot of the complainant.
Gagandeep Singh again lifted up the ploughs, which hit on the
head of the complainant. On hearing the alarm, the assailants
fled away from the spot, leaving the tractor in the field. The
brother of the complainant got him admitted in the hospital for
treatment. With these allegations, the FIR came to be
registered.
[5]. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 323,
324, 120-B and 149 IPC against Gagandeep Singh and other
four accused persons namely Harjit Singh, Jagsir Singh, Gurdev
Singh and Surjit Singh. Later on, Jaswant Singh died on
10.07.2020. Statement of his brother Beant Singh was recorded
on 10.07.2020 and offence under Section 302 IPC was added
vide DDR No.43 dated 10.07.2020.
[6]. According to the statement of Beant Singh, Jaswant
Singh was referred from Civil Hospital Sangrur after four days of
his admission i.e. on 12.06.2020 and he was admitted in Amar
Hospital, Patiala, where he was discharged on 17.06.2020.
3 of 15
CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M) and CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M) 4
Complainant party took Jaswant Singh at home and they used
to get his dressing done daily by calling Dr. Harjinder Singh
Bhura and also used to get the dressing done every week from
Amar Hospital, Patiala. After discharge, they got the dressing of
Jaswant Singh done from Amar Hospital, Patiala on 22.06.2020,
29.06.2020 and 06.07.2020. Jaswant Singh had severe pain in
the chest, due to which. Dr. Harjinder Singh Bhura was called,
who advised the complainant party to take him to Longowal.
Beant Singh was on his way to Chandigarh when he received
the information that Dr. Sellu had referred his brother to Sangrur
due to his serious condition. Jaswant Singh died on the way
from Longowal to Sangrur.
[7]. Wife of Gagandeep Singh made a complaint to SSP,
Barnala in respect of false implication of Gagandeep Singh.
Inquiry was marked to Superintendent of Police, Detective,
Barnala. Vide inquiry dated 30.09.2020, Superintendent of
Police, Detective, Barnala found the following facts:-
"Conclusion:-
So, from my complete enquiry it has been found that
on 08.06.2020 when deceased Jaswant Singh was setting
right the 'wats' with spade in his field, Gagandeep Singh
was cultivating the land with tractor in his field, when
Jaswant Singh due to previous enmity tried to attack
4 of 15
CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M) and CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M) 5
accused Gagandeep Singh after boarding over the
cultivators of tractor, Gagandeep Singh all of a sudden
rotated the tractor and due to which cultivators also
rotated, due to which deceased Jaswant Singh fell down
from the cultivators, above said Gagandeep Singh was not
aware as to whether while doing so that Jaswant Singh
could get grievous injury or he could die. Even then it have
been found to have caused injuries by rotating his tractor
with cultivators to Jaswant Singh. Later on after about one
month of the occurrence due to not proper treatment,
deceased Jaswant Singh became serious in the house and
it has been found while taking for treatment he died on the
way. In this case except Gagandeep Singh, his brother
Harjit Singh @ Budhu, father Gurdev Singh, Jagsir Singh
and Surjit Singh resident of Attla Kalan have not been
found to be guilty in the present case, who are found
innocent and offence under Section 302, 149, 120-B IPC
has not been found to be made out due to which offence is
reduced to 304 IPC against above said Gagandeep Singh.
In case it is approved, SHO Police Station be directed that
he should present the challan in the case after completion
of investigation under Section 304 IPC."
5 of 15
CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M) and CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M) 6
In the aforesaid inquiry, all other accused, except
Gagandeep Singh were found to be innocent. Offence under
Section 302 IPC was recommended to be reduced to offence
under Section 304 IPC qua Gagandeep Singh.
[8]. In the medico legal report of deceased Jaswant
Singh, following five injuries were found on his person:-
"1. M/L lacerated wound, 3 in no., about 1.5 x 0.3cm
on dorsal aspect of left foot. Adv ortho opinion.
2. 'F' shaped lacerated wound, superficial on anterio-
medial aspect of right upper part of thigh, wound is
abt 10 cm x 4cm (vertically) and about 20 cm x 3cm
(horizontally lower limb of f) and about 15cm x 2cm
(on other limb of f). Wound involve scrotal region of
right side: adv ortho and surgery opinion. Movement
of toes of right foot normal.
3. Incised wound 10cm X 0.2cm, oblique on right
hypocoastal region of abdomen, superficial adv
surgery opinion.
4. Incised wound 6cm x 0.2 cm on anterior aspect of
right shoulder joint, vertical, superficial. Adv ortho
opinion.
6 of 15
CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M) and CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M) 7
5. M/L reddish bruise, 2 in no., abt 4cm x 1.5cm on
right of forehead above eye. Adv surgery opinion."
[9]. Jaswant Singh was admitted in the hospital on
08.06.2020 itself at 3:30 PM. The opinion of the doctor was
sought qua nature of injuries on his person. Doctor after going
through the medical treatment, ortho and surgical opinion vide
CR No.8401/433 dated 08.06.2020 of Civil Hospital, Sangrur
and medical record of Amar Hospital vide MLR No.20200/4703
dated 11.06.2020, declared injuries No.1 to 5 as simple in
nature on 05.10.2020.
[10]. During course of treatment of Jaswant Singh in Amar
Hospital, CECT Scan was conducted on 08.06.2020. CECT of
Abdomen and Scrotum was done and following characteristics
were noticed:-
"CECT of abdomen and scrotum was done using
single slice spiral CT taking 10 mm contiguous
sections with 5 mm. pitch starting from the domes of
diaphragm till the perineum & evaluated. Oral and
non lonic I/V contrast was given. No adverse reaction
was observed. CT Findings are:
LIVER: Enlarged in size. Both the lobes show
decreased attenuation s/o fatty infiltration. IHBR are
7 of 15
CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M) and CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M) 8
not dilated. No obvious focal lesion is seen. The
hepatic and portal venous radicles are normal. Porta
hepatis is normal. Portal vein is normal.
GALL BLADDER: Normal in distension. No
intraluminal calculus or mass is seen. Wall thickness
is normal. No pericholecystic fluid collection is
present. CBD is also normally seen. PANCREAS:
Normal in size and shape. Shows homogenous
density in the region of head, body & tail. No focal
lesion is seen MPD is unremarkable.
SPLEEN: Normal in size, shape and density value.
No focal area of abnormal attenuation is seen.
KIDNEYS: Both the kidneys are normal in size, site,
shape and attenuation. Both show prompt excretion
of the contrast. The cortico-medullary differentiation is
normal. The pelvicalyceal system does not show any
hydronephrosis or calculus. No parenchymal mass is
seen. Both the ureters are normally outlined in their
entire course.
URINARY BLADDER: Empty. A filling defect due to
indwelling bulb of catheter is seen.
8 of 15
CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M) and CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M) 9
PROSTATE: Normal in size. It shows homogenous
contrast attenuation values. Capsule appears to be
intact. No obvious focal lesion is seen.
The aorta and its branches and IVC show
normal enhancement after contrast
administration. The visualized contrast/air
filled gut coils are normal in calibre.
No ascites is seen. No free fluid is seen in the
pleural cavities.
The visualised part of the left lower lobe shows
ground glass opacities.
The scrotum appears to be normal. No definite
focal lesion is seen in the testes.
The right thigh shows multiple tiny air pockets in
the subcutaneous tissue and around the
muscles of the medial side. No localized fluid
collection is seen.
CT FINDINGS ARE:-
.No solid organ injury seen in abdomen.
.No definite focal lesion seen in the scrotum.
. Subcutaneous air seen in right thigh.
. Ground glass opacities visualised part of left lung."
[11]. Evidently, the occurrence took place on 08.06.2020. FIR
was lodged on 08.06.2020 itself. The then injured Jaswant Singh
9 of 15
CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M) and CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M) 10
was hospitalized on 08.06.2020 and was discharged on 11.06.2020.
On 11.06.2020 itself, he was hospitalized in Amar Hospital Patiala
and was discharged on 17.06.2020. Jaswant Singh ultimately died
on 10.07.2020 due to chest pain. The cause of death was Asphyxia
due to Aspiration, which was found to be sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature. Meaning of Aspiration as per medical
dictionary is as under:-
"Drawing in or out by suction. Foreign bodies may be
aspirated into the nose, throat or lungs or inspiration.
In common parlance, aspiration means one is breathing
foreign objects into his airways usually it is saliva or
stomach contents when he swallows, vomits or
experience heart burn."
[12]. Challan was submitted. Investigating Officer made the
inquiry report of Superintendent of Police, Detective, Barnala dated
30.09.2020 part of challan after being satisfied. The trial Court at the
time of framing of charge, framed the charge under Section 302
IPC.
[13]. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
even in the absence of inquiry report submitted by Superintendent of
Police, Detective, Barnala, the material on record do not suggest
anything incriminatory against the petitioners so as to attract any
offence, much less offence under Sections 302/304 IPC. For
invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C, the trial Court has to
be satisfied on the basis of more than prima facie material to
10 of 15
CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M) and CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M) 11
summon the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Mere suspicion is
not sufficient to summon the petitioners as additional accused. The
ratio laid down in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2014(3)
SCC 92 in terms of para Nos.105, 106 and 112 read as under:-
"105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra-
ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases
where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised
because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some
other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where
strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led
before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual
and cavalier manner.
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established
from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil
of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere
probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which
is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of
charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes
unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction,
the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if 'it appears from the
evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any
offence' is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried
together with the accused." The words used are not 'for which such
person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court
acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the
accused.
112.The Court should keep in mind that the witness when giving evidence
against the person so discharged, is not doing so merely to seek revenge
or is naming him at the behest of someone or for such other extraneous
considerations. The court has to be circumspect in treating such evidence
and try to separate the chaff from the grain. If after such careful
11 of 15
CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M) and CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M) 12
examination of the evidence, the court is of the opinion that there does
exist evidence to proceed against the person so discharged, it may take
steps but only in accordance with Section 398 Cr.P.C. without resorting to
the provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C. directly."
[14]. It is a settled principle of law that an order under Section
319 Cr.P.C cannot be passed in routine manner. The evidence must
be convincing and must satisfy the standards as pointed out in
Hardeep Singh's case (supra). Mere ipse dixit would not serve any
purpose. The inquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police,
Detective, Barnala has also been made part of the challan,
therefore, the same merges in the investigation conducted by the
police and is also part of challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
[15]. Gagandeep Singh was granted regular bail by this Court
vide order dated 23.02.2021 passed in CRM-M No.879 of 2021. The
concession of bail was also extended to him under Section 302 IPC
vide order dated 16.03.2021 passed by this Court in CRM No.7419
of 2021 in CRM-M No.879 of 2021. Challan was submitted against
Gagandeep Singh only under Section 304 IPC and the Court framed
charges under Sections 302, 149, 120-B IPC only against
Gagandeep Singh. Petitioners were found to be declared innocent.
Beant Singh was examined as PW-1.
[16]. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently
opposed the order on the ground that in view of statement of injured
eye-witness and testimony of the complainant, the petitioners have
been named in the case from the very beginning. In view of
Criminal Appeal Nos.298-299 of 2021 titled Sartaj Singh Vs.
12 of 15
CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M) and CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M) 13
State of Haryana and another decided on 15.03.2021, powers
under Section 319 Cr.P.C can be exercised to summon the
petitioners as additional accused. Petitioners were not charge-
sheeted only on the basis of inquiry conducted by Superintendent of
Police, Detective, Barnala and inquiry has no evidentiary value in
view of ratio laid down in CRM-M No.16013 of 2020 titled Pankaj
Kumar @ Panki Vs. State of Punjab and another decided by the
High Court on 18.03.2021 (now stayed by Hon'ble the Apex Court).
[17]. Perusal of the record would show that inquiry conducted
by the Superintendent of Police, Detective, Barnala whether would
be consistent with the inquiry conducted by the Investigating Officer
or not is the domain on which the impugned order is silent. The
judgment of Pankaj Kumar @ Panki's case (supra) (now stayed
by Hon'ble the Apex Court) is in the context of holding parallel
inquiries by the higher officers, which according to the instructions
issued by the DGP was deprecated in the cited judgment.
[18]. Now the question arises whether material available on
record de hors inquiry report dated 30.09.2020 conducted by
Superintendent of Police, Detective, Barnala would bring the case
within the four corners of the ratio laid down in Hardeep Singh's
case (supra) or not.
[19]. Since the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur has
decided the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C primarily on the
consideration of Pankaj Kumar @ Panki's case (supra) (now
stayed by Hon'ble the Apex Court), therefore, I deem it appropriate
13 of 15
CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M) and CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M) 14
to direct the trial Court to re-visit the issue in order to determine the
following:-
(1). Whether there is more than a prima facie material
available on record minus the report of Superintendent of
Police, Detective, Barnala dated 30.09.2020.
(2). Whether on the basis of MLR of the then injured, CECT
scan report and medical opinion on record, any more than
prima facie case exists in favour of the prosecution to summon
the petitioners as additional accused.
[20]. Perusal of the impugned order would show that
requirement of law on the basis of aforesaid factual criteria has to be
first answered by the trial Court on the basis of record.
[21]. In view of aforesaid, I deem it appropriate to set aside the
impugned order dated 19.08.2021 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Sangrur with a direction to the trial Court to re-visit the issue
and pass fresh order in accordance with law, particularly in the light
of observations made hereinabove. CRR No.972 of 2021 is
accordingly allowed.
[22]. Nothing observed hereinabove, would be taken to be an
expression on the merits of the case. The trial Court would be at
liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
[23]. Since order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Sangrur is set aside with a liberty to the trial Court
to pass fresh order, therefore, CRM-M No.37521 of 2021 is
rendered infructuous. Parties would be at liberty to avail their legal
14 of 15
CRR No.972 of 2021(O&M) and CRM-M No.37521 of 2021(O&M) 15
remedies afresh in accordance with law after fresh decision on the
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C by the trial Court.
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
11.10.2021
Prince
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
15 of 15
