In the recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Supreme Court highlighted the sufficiency of prima facie evidence and the consistent deposition of witnesses, affirming the Trial Court's decision.
Brief Facts:
The case involves an incident where the Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd. lodged a complaint against one Devraj Miglani for alleged misappropriation of paddy worth Rs. 4.18 crores. The investigation was transferred to the Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda, where the appellant, an Inspector in the Police Department, was assigned to investigate the case. During the investigation, a complaint arose, alleging that a Head Constable approached the niece of the accused, demanding Rs. 50,000, as mentioned in a slip purportedly written by the accused. Subsequently, a (FIR) was registered, and investigations revealed allegations of demands amounting to Rs. 24 lakhs by four police officials, including the appellant, from the accused's family for various favors during custody, as claimed by witnesses. The case proceeded to trial, and an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed to summon the appellant and three other officials, which was initially rejected by the Trial Court but later allowed on appeal. The appellant challenged this decision before the High Court and subsequently in the Supreme Court, arguing lack of sanction and other merit-based contentions against their summoning.
Contention of Parties:
The appellant argued that the original complaint did not specifically mention any allegations against them. They pointed out that while the initial complaint related to a demand for Rs. 50,000, subsequent statements alleged a demand for Rs. 24 lakhs, suggesting a discrepancy in the case. The appellant claimed that the application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was a retaliatory measure by the informant due to the appellant's testimony against the informant's father in another case.
The State and complainant stressed the consistency in the statements of witnesses, indicating demands for money and harassment by the accused officials against the accused's family. They argued that witness statements, including those of the accused's family members and other witnesses, provided sufficient prima facie evidence justifying the summoning of the appellant and other officials. The State contended that the alleged motive of retaliation by the informant for the appellant's testimony in another case did not hold weight since the statements made were consistent over time and prior to the appellant's testimony.
Observation of the court:
The Court noted the consistency in statements from witnesses, including the informant, family members of the accused, and other witnesses, regarding demands for money and harassment by the accused officials against the accused's family. This consistency was crucial in establishing prima facie evidence. While acknowledging the initial complaint related to a demand for Rs. 50,000, the Court highlighted that subsequent statements consistently alleged demands for Rs. 24 lakhs.
The Court suggested that even if the initial complaint didn't detail the entire narrative, subsequent accounts supported the broader story of harassment and extortion. The Court rejected the defense's claim that the application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was a counterblast due to the appellant's testimony against the informant's father. It noted that the informant's statements were made well before the appellant's testimony and remained consistent. The Court stressed that the Trial Court's examination of evidence, along with the consistent narrative of witnesses, met the parameters set in previous judgments, justifying the summoning of the accused officials under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.
The decision of the court:
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's decision to summon the accused officials, emphasizing the significance of consistent witness statements and the Trial Court's autonomy in evaluating evidence during the trial.
Case Title: Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2021 Latest Caselaw 176 SC
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 11654 of 2023.
Citation: 2021 Latest Caselaw 176 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Mr Justice Rajesh Bindal
Advocate for the Appellant: Gaurav Agarwal
Advocates for the Respondents: Shri Sunil Fernandes, AAG appeared for the State of Punjab, and Ms. Eshaa Miglani, the wife of the complainant, appeared in person on behalf of the complainant during the proceedings.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
