Dr. Bijender Singh vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.—Dr. Bijender Singh has given a complaint on the basis of which the FIR No. 108 dated 12.10.1994 under Sections 304B, 34 and 201, Indian Penal Code etc. was registered at Police Station Pillukhera regarding the death of his sister Promila. A case with reference to the same is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. The complainant Bijender Singh has sent a letter through registered post to this Court making some complaint against the Presiding Officer and requesting to transfer the case to some other Court. On my orders, this application was treated as a criminal miscellaneous application. Notice was ordered to be issued to the complainant, the Advocate General, Haryana and also to the accused in the case titled State v. Navin Kumar and Ors.

One of the accused in this case (Navin Kumar) has filed Criminal Misc. No. 15106-M of 1996 u/s 439, Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail in the said case. By this order, I am disposing of both these applications.

The complainant has made the following allegations in his petition :

"From the beginning of the examination of the complainant, the Judge made him nervous and directed him not to waste time of the Court and tell in one sentence as to how many times his sister came to and went from his house to her in-laws'' house during the entire period. When objection was raised by the Counsel for the State that it is not possible to tell all these facts in one sentence, the Judge asked to him sit down.

Whatever the complainant deposed was not recorded correctly, as the defence Counsel was dictating the translation to the Steno/ Reader. For example,

(a) The complainant told that five tolas gold jewellery was given at the time of marriage but it was recorded as "five tolas gold".

(b) The petitioner deposed that on the morning of 11.10.1995, he got information that his sister had been murdered but it was translated as "murdered and cremated".

(c) The complainant deposed that his complaint was handed over to the police and that it bears his signatures but it was translated as "Complaint is in his own hand".

(d) The complainant deposed that he reached Bhartana Village around 4.00 p.m. with the police party but it was translated as if he left Bhartana Village at 4.00 p.m.

(e) The complainant deposed that his father was at Gurgaon on that day and he specifically denied that he had attended the cremation but this fact was not recorded.

(f) PW Karan Singh deposed before the Court, that "not to talk of costly items, even upto pickles have to come from your home", but it was translated that the accused were demanding pickles. According to the complainant, these have been done intentionally as the defence Counsel was dictating translation to the Steno/Reader.

(g) At one stage of the cross-examination of the complainant, the Judge remarked that there is nothing in this case, which shows that he has already made up his mind to acquit the accused.

(h) During trial, the Judge remarked that he had to dispose of this case at the earliest showing extraordinary interest in disposing of the case. The Judge also called the witnesses by special messenger.

(i) Since the beginning, the accused and their relatives were laughing throughout the trial/evidence. Counsel for the complainant Mr. Bedi was insulted by the Judge on the excuse that he had given hint to the witness Karan Singh, whereas the Counsel was sitting in a position from where it was not possible for him to give any hint to the witness.

(j) On 17.3.1996, the complainant was staying at the house of his relative Karan Singh where Shri Dahiya, ex-Captain who is the husband of the father''s sister of the accused, came there and told the complainant that there is no use to carry on the trial, that it is better to make compromise and remove all enmity and that otherwise also, he has managed to somebody and that the accused would be acquitted."

Mentioning all these reasons, the complainant has prayed that since he apprehends that the Judge is not impartial, that he will not get justice from that Court and that the accused will be acquitted in spite of sufficient evidence the case be transferred.

S.I. /S.H.O., P.S. Pillukhera has filed a reply on behalf of the State stating that the case is still pending in the Court of (Shri R.S. Madan), Additional Sessions Judge, Jind and so it will not be appropriate to comment upon the proceedings that took place in that Court, and that the decision of the Court should be awaited in the interest of justice.

The Presiding Officer whose comments were called for on this petition, has also sent his comments alongwith the photo-copies of the deposition of the complainant Bijender Singh and Karan Singh, apart from the copies of certain petitions, which are not very much relevant. The Presiding Officer of the Additional Sessions Court Mr. R.S. Madan has in his remarks denied that he ever made the complainant nervous or commented that he was wasting the time of the Court. According to him, the deposition of the complainant runs into 11 pages. He has denied that the complainant was asked to give details of the number of visits in one sentence. He has also denied that the defence Counsel was dictating translation to the Steno/Reader, and has stated that he gave the dictation as per the deposition given by the witness.

The Presiding Officer has also stated that the complainant deposed before the Court that five tolas of gold were given apart from certain other items as enumerated by him. The Presiding Officer has also stated that the complainant deposed that on 11.10.1994, his uncle Rajinder Singh came to him at Chandigarh and told him that his sister Promila had been killed by accused Navin Kumar, his sister Vanita and his mother Sumitra and that he went to the Village Bhartana and learnt that his sister Promila had been murdered and thereafter she was cremated. The learned Presiding Officer has also stated that the complainant deposed that he had written the complaint Ex. PA. The Presiding Officer has also stated that the complainant deposed that it did not come to his notice on 11.10.1994 that his father and other relations had attended the last rites of Promila, but he was so informed by someone in the village, and that he went to enquire from his father as to whether he had attended the last rites of Promila, but his father did not answer in the affirmative. While denying all these allegations by the complainant, the Presiding Officer has stated that it is wrong to say that he translated that the petitioner had left for the Village Bhartana at 4.00 p.m. but has recorded that the complainant had reached Village Bhartana at 4.00 p.m.

The Presiding Officer has further stated that Karan Singh PW had deposed that he had stated to the police that the accused had demanded cooking-gas, buffalo, pickle. He also denied that he gave any expression to either of the parties about the merit of the case. He has also stated that he has been impressing upon the parties to expedite the trial as one of the accused is confined in jail for more than a year, and that was why he had given short dates, as the High Court had impressed upon the Presiding Officer to dispose of the cases in which the accused are confined in jail, expeditiously.

The Presiding Officer has further stated that when the evidence of PW 4 Karan Singh was being recorded, Mr. S.S. Bedi, Advocate who was representing the complainant, gave hint to the witness as to what other articles were taken into possession by the police and that he has recorded this in the deposition also, and has extracted that portion in his remarks.

No reply was filed on behalf of the accused though they are represented by Counsel. Therefore, I have to now find whether there are sufficient grounds for ordering transfer of the case from the file of Mr. R.S. Madan, Additional Sessions Judge, Jind to the file of any other Court.

Cr. M. No. 15106-M/96

Accused Navin Kumar has filed this application u/s 439, Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail in the above case pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. He is the husband of the deceased Promila. The complainant Bijender Singh has alleged in his complaint to the police that he got married his sister Promila to the petitioner/accused Navin Kumar on 30.5.1993 and gave lot of dowry articles, that the attitude of Navin Kumar, his mother and his sister was not good and that they used to quarrel with his sister demanding more dowry, that his sister had been coming to his house and was being sent back to the house of her husband on more than one occasion, that on 11.10.1994, he was informed at Chandigarh that his sister Promila has been done to death by Navin Kumar, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law on 10.10.1994, and that on getting the information, he rushed to Village Bhartana, but they had already cremated his sister. On the basis of this complaint, the FIR as mentioned above, was registered by Police Station Pillukhera. The accused/petitioner Navin Kumar states that he is innocent, that he is the only earning male member in the family and his father is already dead, that the complainant has moved an application for transfer of the case, that the prosecution witnesses have been examined, that the further proceedings before the Additional Sessions Judge have been stayed, and in view of the delay, he may be released on bail.

This application for bail is being opposed by the learned A.A.G., Haryana.

I have heard the Counsels for both the sides.

I will first deal with the request for transfer of the case. The contention of the complainant is that the learned Presiding Officer has not recorded the evidence properly. According to him, he stated that he had given five tolas of gold jewellery but the Presiding Officer had recorded it as five tolas of gold. The complainant also claims that he deposed that on the morning of 11.10.1995, he got information that his sister has been murdered but it was recorded as "murdered and cremated". The learned Presiding Officer has stated in his remarks that the complainant (who was examined as PW 1) deposed that he had given five tolas of gold. The copy of the deposition also shows that the complainant, after enumerating certain articles, has mentioned only a five tolas of gold. Similarly, he had deposed that he was informed that his sister Promila has been killed by the accused, that she has been cremated and that on learning about it, he went to Village Bhartana and tried to verify from the villagers about the cause of death and that there he learnt that his sister Promila had been murdered and thereafter she was cremated. Apart from this, even in the FIR (which has been extracted in the application for bail), the complainant has stated that he had given gold (five tolas). He has not mentioned as ''gold jewels''. Similarly, he has also stated in the FIR that on getting information about the death of his sister, he rushed to Village Bhartana but they had already cremated his sister. The deposition is not only in line with the allegations found in the FIR, but the Presiding Officer has also denied that he has not recorded the deposition properly. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that mere assertion of the complainant cannot be accepted in this regard.

The other complaint against the Presiding Officer is that the complainant deposed that the complaint was handed over by him to the police and that it bears his signatures, but, it the recorded as if the complaint itself is in his own hand. From the copy of the deposition, I find that he has deposed that he had written the complaint Ex. PA while sitting at the Bus Stand, Jind, that he did not give the complaint to the SSP, Jind, that he went to Pillukhera to lodge the report with the police and that Karan Singh PW was not with him when he had written the complaint. Therefore, it is not as if a snap answer was recorded that the complainant had written the complaint Ex. PA but the several answers given by him show that the complainant must have told that he had written the complaint. Therefore, this reason given by the complainant cannot also be accepted.

The complainant has further stated that he had deposed before the Court that he reached Bhartana Village around 4.00 p.m. whereas it was recorded as if he left Bhartana at 4. p.m. But a persual of his deposition shows that it has been correctly recorded that he had reached Bhartana at 4 p.m. and not that he had left Bhartana at 4 p.m. Therefore, it is evident that this allegation of the complainant is wholly false.

Another ground given by the complainant is regarding the presence of his father at the time of cremation of his sister. According to the complainant, he deposed that he was at Gurgaon on that day and that he specifically denied that he attended the cremation but this fact was not recorded by the Court. Here again, a perusal of the deposition of the complainant shows that he was informed by someone in the village that his father had attended the last rites of Promila, but, when he went to his father to enquire whether he had attended the last rites of Promila, his father did not answer in the affirmative. Therefore, this contention of the complainant again cannot be accepted.

The next ground urged by the complainant is that Karan Singh (who was examined as PW 4 before the Additional Sessions Judge) deposed before the Court that not to talk of costly items, even upto pickles have to come from your home, but, it was translated as if the accused were demanding pickles. The learned Presiding Officer has stated in his remark that PW 4 Karan Singh deposed that Promila told him that the accused demanded cooking-gas, buffalo and pickle. The deposition shows in the examination-in-chief itself that PW 4 Karan Singh has stated so and in the cross-examination, he was confronted with his statement Ex. DB wherein it was not so recorded, because he asserted that he had told the police that the accused demanded cooking-gas buffalo and pickle. Therefore, mere assertion of the complainant in this regard cannot be accepted.

The complainant has urged that from the beginning of his examination. The Presiding Officer made him nervous and asked him not to waste the time and tell in one sentence as to how many times his sister had come and gone back from his house to the house of her in-laws throughout the entire period, and that even the Counsel for the State objected to this. The Presiding Officer has, in his remarks, denied this and has stated that the statement of the petitioner runs into 11 pages, while the chief-examination alone runs into 3 1/2 pages. In this regard, except mere complainant''s affidavit, no other affidavit especially that of his Counsel has been filed. If really what the complainant says is true, the complainant could have produced atleast the affidavit of his own Counsel, if not the affidavit of the Counsel appearing for the State. Similarly, there is also no affidavit of his Counsel regarding the allegation that the Presiding Officer remarked that there is nothing in this case.

So far as the allegation that the Presiding Officer was showing extraordinary interest in disposing of the case by stating that he had to dispose of the case at the earliest and that he had even called witnesses by special messenger, the Presiding Officer has mentioned in his remarks that since one of the accused is in jail, and since there are instructions by the High Court to dispose of the cases expeditiously in which the accused are in jail, he had only impressed upon the parties to expedite the trial. This conduct of the Presiding Officer even, if true, cannot be criticised by anybody, much less the complainant.

The complainant has alleged that since beginning, the accused and there relatives were laughing throughout the trial/evidence, and that his Counsel Mr. S.S. Bedi was also insulted by the Presiding Officer on the pretext that he had given hint to the witness Karan Singh. According to the complainant, his Counsel was sitting in a position from where it was not possible for him to give any hint to the witness. In his comments, the Presiding Officer has stated that while evidence of PW 4 Karan Singh was being recorded, Mr. S.S. Bedi, Advocate who was representing the complainant, gave hint to the witness as to what other articles were taken into possession by the police and this demeanour has also been recorded in the deposition. A perusal of the copy of the deposition of PW 4 Karan Singh shows that Karan Singh had stated that no other article was handed over to the police in his presence by anyone else. The Presiding Officer has noted in the brackets that when the learned P.P. asked this witness time and again as to whether any other article was taken into possession by the police or any other person has produced anything before the Investigating Officer, the witness denied the same but Mr. S.S. Bedi, Advocate representing the complainant in this case told the witness that the police had recorded the statement of Bijender Singh (PW 1) and has produced letters Ex. P2 to Ex. P7 before the police and that after getting hint from Mr. Bedi, the witness stated about it. These remarks have been made in the presence of the complainant''s Counsel. As pointed out already, there is no affidavit filed by the said Counsel in this behalf. Therefore, this ground urged by the complainant cannot also be accepted.

One other ground urged by the complainant is that on 17.3.1996, while he '' was staying at the house of his relative Karan Singh, Shri Dahiya (who is the accused''s father''s sister''s husband) came there and told him that there is no use to carry on the trial, that it is better to compromise at this stage and remove all enmity as otherwise, he has managed to somebody and that the accused will be acquitted. No affidavit in support of these allegations has been filed by the said Karan Singh. It is easy to make allegations that the accused were laughing all the while and that somebody told the complainant that he has seen to it that the accused will be acquitted. On the basis of these bald assertions, request for transfer of the case cannot be granted. The Presiding Officer has denied the allegations levelled against him. It is seen that the trial of the case is almost over and at this stage and in the circumstances, I feel that no ground has been made for transfer of the case.

I will now deal with the prayer for grant for bail to accused Navin Kumar. He is the husband of the deceased Promila. The marriage took place on 30.5.1993. Promila died in October, 1994 at the house of the accused. There is the presumption against the accused. His earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court on 28.5.1996. No new grounds have been pointed out except his allegation that the transfer application has been filed and, therefore, the proceedings are delayed. The trial is almost over and I expect the same to be completed quickly. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there are no grounds for granting bail to the petitioner Navin Kumar.