Bakha Singh vs State of Haryana

G. S. Chahal, J.

The petitioner, by means of this. criminal miscellancous u/s 482, Cr.P.C. seeks the quashing of the charge, Annexure PI for offences u/ss 302/1481149, IPC framed by the trial Court, relating to FIR No. 212 dated 12.5.1989, registered at Police Station Nissing.

The impugned FIR was registered on the statement of Hardip Singh son of partap Singh, resident of Behlolpur. As a result of the occurrence. Partap Si gh is alleged to have died. Karnail Singh (sincedeceased), along with Jasbir Singh, Bakha Singh petitioner, Gurmukh Singh and Amir Singh were named therein as the assailants for this offence. After investigation, the Police found Karnail Singh, Bakha Singh petitioner and Amir Singh to be innocent and put in the challan against, Jasbir Singh, Gumukh Singh, Ranjit Singh, Subeg Singh and Sukha Singh. The trial Court firstly framed charges u/ss 148, 32. read with Section 149, IPC against Jasbir Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Bikkar Singh, Amir Singh and Karnail Singh (deceased) and in the alternative, it framed charges for offences u/ss. 148,302, read with Section 149, IPC against Jasbir Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Ranjit Singh, Sukha Singh and Subeg Singh. The petitioner challenges the framing of the charges on the ground that it was for the prosecution to come out with a clear cut case as to who were the persons who had. committed the crime. The trial Court has acted against the provisions of law by framing the charges in alternative.

U/s 223, Cr.P.C. which corresponds Section 239 of Act V of 1898 (old Code) inter alia it is provided that joint trial of persons who are accused of the same offences committed in the course of the same transaction. On the face of it, it cannot be said that the two sets. of accused can be described to be the personsaccused of the same offence.

In Amar Singh and anr. v. The State, AIR 1954 Punjab 106(DB) seven persons were jointly tried at one trial. The charge against the first accused was that he committed P''s murder and also committed offences under Sections 307 and 324, Penal Code against certain other persons on a particular day. The other six accused were also charged with the same offences committed against the same persons on that very day. On these facts their Lordships held that the two sets of accused were mutually exelusive and could not be tried. It was observed as under :

"Thus it was no part of the duty of the Public Prosecutor to put both versions before the Court, and after all a trial Court is not to solve conundrums not to determine as to who has committed the offence, but in all cases the function of the Criminal Court is to adjudicate between the State and the accused as to whether the accused in that particular case is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. In the present case, the prosecution were themselves not clear as to whether one set of accused had committed the offence or the other set, and to try the two sets together is in my opinion contrary to the provisions of the Code which has in Chapter XIX and sections 233 to 240 laid down provisions for joinder of charges."

It was, thug, concluded that there was violation of the Provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the trial was illegal.

The present case is clearly covered by the observations of the Division Bench. The petitioner cannot be jointly tried with Ranjit Singh, Sukha Singh and Subeg Singh in a case in which alternative charges have been framed. I hereby accept the revision and quash the charges framed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal dated 1261991, Annexure P1. The Court may proceed in accordance with law. It may consider the possibility of separate trial against the two sets of accused persons.

JUDGMENT accordingly.