Baldev Kaur vs State of Punjab and others

Baldev Kaur (petitioner) has filed this petition under Section

482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for transferring the investigation

in FIR No. 62 dated 6.5.2014, registered under Sections 457, 307, 148, 149

IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station

Bagha Purana, District Moga, to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),

Crime Branch or to any other agency for free and fair investigation. Further

prayer is made for protection of life and liberty of the petitioner and her

family members at the hands of private respondents.

The petitioner claims that her husband, namely, Roop Singh, is

a worker of Congress party. Roop Singh, husband of the petitioner,

alongwith 3-4 other Congress workers were implicated in FIR No. 59 dated

30.4.2014, registered under Sections 323, 341, 148 and 149 IPC at Police

Station Bagha Purana, District Moga, alleging that they had attacked the

Akali workers on the day of Lok Sabha Elections on 30.4.2014. The said

offences are bailable. Even then, one Dilbagh Singh was arrested and was

kept in illegal detention for 2-3 days. Later on, Akali workers attacked the

house of the petitioner with deadly weapons and the life of husband of the

petitioner was saved at PGI. Regarding the present incident, it is stated that

on 6.5.2014, at about 12:30 AM (midnight), private respondents No. 5 to 8,

namely, Sukhdev Singh, Jagsir Singh, Swaran Singh and Inderjit Singh

entered the house of the petitioner and attacked her husband Roop Singh.

Jagsir Singh fired a shot on the leg of husband of the petitioner. Sukhdev

Singh fired a shot of his rifle which hit the chest of husband of the petitioner.

They were accompanied by two unidentified persons, who were later on

identified to be Swaran Singh and Inderjit Singh (private respondents No. 7

and 8). Accordingly, present FIR No. 62, dated 6.5.2014 was registered

under Sections 457, 307, 148 and 149 IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of

the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Bagha Purana, District Moga. It is

further stated that respondent No. 5, namely, Sukhdev Singh is an Ex-

Sarpanch of village and belongs to ruling party (Akali Dal). Private

respondents No. 6 and 7, namely, Jagsir Singh and Swaran Singh are the

nephews of one SGPC member and the local police is helping them,

apparently for the reason that at that time, Akali Dal Government was in

power in the State of Punjab. The petitioner was threatened that they will

be taught a lesson. The petitioner approached the higher authority, but no

action has been taken so far. It is further alleged that respondent No. 4,

namely, Jasvir Singh ASI, Police Station Bagha Purana, District Moga,

raided the house of the petitioner and abused the ladies and threatened that

he will put all the family members behind the bars. Due to terror created

by respondents, the petitioner and her family members cannot enter their

house and they are passing their days by hiding here and there. The

petitioner claims that she is a 60 years of age and is moving from pillar to

post to get the justice. Due to influence of private respondents with ruling

Akali Dal, nobody is listening to them. Hence, present petition.

In the written reply by way of affidavit of Balwinder Singh,

PPS, DSP, Bagha Purana, District Moga, dated 6.8.2014, it was stated that

the investigation of this case was being carried out by Jatinder Singh,

Inspector/SHO Police Station Bagha Purana. However, the Deputy

Inspector General of Police (DIG), Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur, constituted

a Special Investigating Team (SIT) under the supervision of S.P. (D), Moga.

The other members of the team are DSP Bagha Purana, Incharge CIA Staff,

Moga and SHO Police Station Bagha Purana. The Special Investigating

Team started the investigation on 9.5.2014. It was found during

investigation that Sukhdev Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of village, Jagsir Singh,

Swaran Singh and Inderjit Singh (respondents No. 5 to 8 respectively)

have been falsely implicated, whereas Roop Singh, husband of the

petitioner, Joginder Singh son of Roop Singh, Dilbagh Singh son of

Mohinder Singh, Harpreet Singh son of Bhajan Singh and Parwinder Singh

son of Ajmer Singh are the real culprits in this case. Accordingly, their

houses were raided, but they could not be apprehended. It was further

found during investigation that due to personal enmity, Dilbagh Singh,

Joginder Singh, Parwinder Singh and Harpreet Singh conspired with each

other and they managed to falsely involve Sukhdev Singh etc. by causing

fire arms injuries to Roop Singh and concocted a false story and lodged a

false FIR in order to settle the scores, regarding FIR No. 59, dated

30.4.2014, under Sections 341, 323, 325, 148 and 149 IPC, registered

against them at Police Station Bagha Purana, District Moga.

Respondents No. 5 to 8, in the reply dated 15.9.2014, also

affirmed that DIG Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur, had constituted a SIT on

9.5.2014, which is much prior to the filing of present petition. It was stated

that present story was concocted to pressurize private respondents in said

FIR No. 59, dated 30.4.2014, referred above. False firearms, injuries have

been fabricated on the left leg and left shoulder of Roop Singh with their

own with 7.65 bore pistol. This fact is borne out from 4 empty cases

recovered from the spot by SHO/Inspector Jatinder Singh soon after the

occurrence on 6.5.2014. The weapon used in the occurrence i.e. 7.65 bore

pistol does not belong to any of the accused named in the FIR. .315 bore

rifle bearing No. 94-AG-2604, registered in the name of Sukhdev Singh

(respondent No. 5) is lying deposited with the Sidhu Gun House since

19.3.2014, as per entry No. 1410. It was further asserted that from the call

details of mobile phones of Roop Singh, Joginder Singh, Dilbagh Singh and

Parwinder (Parminder) Singh alias Phinda, it has come to light that these

persons were in touch with each other on mobile phones. Joginder Singh

had cancelled his mobile connection and took a new connection and started

using SIM card of Jagga Singh, resident of Sangatpura and made calls from

it. Similarly, Dilbagh Singh, who had mobile No. 96468-72000, on the

midnight of 5.5.2014 had 5-22.34 minutes talk with Jagdeep Singh alias

Garry for arranging weapon to suffer injury to Roop Singh. This fact was revealed by Jagdeep Singh alias Garry before the SIT. Therefore, the

injuries were self inflicted and private respondents are being falsely

implicated.

In a short affidavit dated 14.1.2015, filed by Balwinder Singh,

PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bagha Purana, District Moga, this

Court was informed that report of SIT has been approved by the DIG,

Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur.

Yet another short reply by way of affidavit dated 15.9.2015,

filed by Jaspal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bagha Purana,

District Moga, the copies of statements of injured, eye witnesses,

Ramandeep Kaur wife of Joginder Singh alias Gora and Kamlesh Kaur wife

of Tarsem Singh (daughters in law of petitioner), recorded on 6.5.2014

under Section 161 Cr.P.C., were placed on file.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

State counsel, the learned senior counsel for private respondents No. 5 to 8

and have also carefully gone through the file.

Admittedly, in this case, FIR No. 62 was registered on 6.5.2014

on and on 9.5.2014, the DIG, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur, formed a SIT,

headed by Superintendent of Police (D), Moga and the SIT carried out the

investigation. The version of the complainant in the FIR is that when she

alongwith her husband Roop Singh, daughters in law Ramandeep Kaur wife

of Joginder Singh and Kamlesh wife of Tarsem Singh was present in their

house, accused came in the courtyard. Sukhdev Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of

village, was armed with rifle and Jagsir Singh was armed with pistol.

Accused Swaran Singh and Inderjit Singh were also standing in the

courtyard. It is not alleged that said Swaran Singh and Inderjit Singh were carrying any weapon. Then, it is alleged that Jagsir Singh gave a shot of his

pistol on the left leg of husband of the petitioner and Sukhdev Singh gave a

shot of his rifle on the chest of her husband. However, the statement of

Roop Singh, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 6.5.2014

(Annexure-R-1/T) shows that according to him, Swaran Singh was armed

with revolver, Inderjit Singh was armed with a revolver, Jagsir Singh was

armed with pistol and Sukhdev Singh was armed with a rifle. Sukhdev

Singh raised lalkara (exhortation). Swaran Singh fired a shot of his

revolver, which hit on left shoulder of Roop Singh and then Inderjit Singh

fired a shot of his gun which hit on his left leg. This is in complete

contrast to the statement made by present petitioner at the time of lodging

the FIR, wherein rifle shot injury was attributed to Sukhdev Singh and pistol

shot injury was attributed to Jagsir Singh, whereas Swaran Singh and Inderjit

Singh were not recorded to be carrying any weapon. Similarly, in her

statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Ramandeep Kaur has stated that

Swaran Singh fired a shot of his pistol which hit the left shoulder of Roop

Singh and Inderjit Singh fired a shot of his pistol which hit the leg of Roop

Singh. Kamlesh Kaur wife of Tarsem Singh also made a similar statement.

In this way, on the first day itself, injured and other eye witnesses changed

their stand and the persons who fired shot were replaced and so were the

weapons.

Now, the medical evidence placed on file in the form of

discharge and follow up card, issued by PGI, Chandigarh, which also carry

the diagrams of seat of injuries shows that one shot hit the right posterior

side i.e. back of the husband of the petitioner and exit from the front side

near the shoulder. The entry wound is on the back and exit wound is on the

front. This is also contrary to the assertion of PWs that the shot was fired

from the front and hit the chest. The entry and exit wound shows that

probably the person, who fired shot, was at lower level than the level of the

entry wound that is why the exit wound is at bit higher place than the chest.

The diagram also shows that on the left leg, there is an entry wound from

the front and exit wound from left leg, resulting in fracture of the leg. The

entry and exit wound is at the same level showing that it was fired from the

same level i.e. lower portion of leg. Same weapon i.e. 7.65 bore pistol is

stated to have been used in the crime. It is to be further noted that now

Congress Government is in power in Punjab State, which is the party of

Roop Singh (injured).

Now, the question before this Court is that as to whether the SIT

conducted fair investigation or it is a tainted investigation ?

The SIT has come to the conclusion that the injuries were

fabricated. Accordingly, the complainant party has now been challned

under Sections 182, 185, 211 and 120-B IPC and under Sections 25 and 27

of the Arms Act, 1959. At this stage, it is not appropriate to comment on

the evidentiary value of the contrary statements, the manner of

commission of crime, the weapons used therein, the shifting of accused

regarding attribution of injuries and alleged used of rifle by Sukhdev

Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of village, which is found to be not used in the crime.

Suffice to say that from the documents placed on file, this Court has come to

the conclusion that fair investigation was conducted by the police after

taking into consideration material collected from the spot, statements of

witnesses and the medical opinion. Therefore, the SIT has come to a

particular conclusion, which goes against the petitioner. Therefore, this

Court at this stage cannot say that the investigation is tainted. Therefore, no

case is made out to get another investigation conducted from any other

agency.

It being so, petition is found to be without any merit and is

hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner shall always be at liberty to avail

the remedy available to her under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

However, it is directed that comments made above shall not be taken into

consideration, while deciding the case between the parties on merits.