Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab

This revision petition is directed against the order dated

7.9.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which

he had dismissed application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for

permission to examine Rupinder Kaur w/o Jasbir Singh, r/o village

Panjeta, Sub Tehsil Koom Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, as

well as Investigating Officer Navdeep Singh, as prosecution

witnesses.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an application

under Section 311 Cr.P.C. dated 5.9.2017 was filed by the

prosecution for permission to examine Rupinder Kaur, as well as

Investigating Officer, Navdeep Singh, contending that those were

material witnesses. Rupinder Kaur being real daughter-in-law of

deceased Gurdev Singh, had seen accused party threatening Gurdev

Singh and recording statement of Rupinder Kaur is necessary to

prove such threats given by accused to Gurdev Singh to kill him,

therefore she is a material witness. Rupinder Kaur had got her

statement recorded with the police to the effect that accused had

threatened Gurdev Singh in her presence but the Investigating

Agency in order to give unwanted favour to the accused did not cite

Rupinder Kaur as a witness and has intentionally not procured the

presence of SI Navdeep Singh, Investigating Officer. Therefore, they

be allowed to be examined as prosecution witnesses by invoking the

provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C.

The application was resisted by the accused challenging

maintainability of the application, contending that it is based upon

false grounds. It has been filed by the complainant through a private

counsel, who had moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

earlier also in which Rupinder Kaur and SI Navdeep Singh were not

mentioned as witnesses to be examined, by way of additional

evidence. The application was for re-examination of PW-3 Prem

Singh, who had turned hostile; that during the investigation,

statement of Rupinder Kaur was not recorded by the Investigating

Officer SI Navdeep Singh; that even mother-in-law of Rupinder

Kaur had appeared as PW-5 and she nowhere stated that Rupinder

Kaur had made any statement to the police during investigation; that

SI Navdeep Singh has been absconding due to some criminal cases

registered against him and has been declared a proclaimed offender.

The only role attributed to him is regarding arrest of accused and he

has not carried out any material investigation. Therefore, these two

witnesses are not material and application has been filed just to

prolong the proceedings.

Learned trial Court has dismissed the application with the

following observations :-

"On careful perusal of the file shows that during the

investigation neither any statement of alleged

Rupinder Kaur recorded by the investigating officer

nor she has been stated as witness in the list of

witnesses of the prosecution nor even up-till the time

of closing of evidence by the prosecution this fact

and circumstances in any manner came on the file

that Rupinder Kaur who has stated to be the real

daughter in law of the deceased has also made any

statement before the investigating officer. Further,

even mother of Rupinder Kaur namely Gurcharan

Kaur has also made deposition as PW-5 in this trial

even she in her deposition made in the court nowhere

stated that any statement of Rupinder Kaur was

recorded by the investigating Officer. Further, even

in the present application vague type of allegations

has been mentioned that in the presence of Rupinder

Kaur, accused threatened her father Gurdev Singh,

but when alleged threats were given nothing

mentioned in the present application, where alleged

threats were given nothing mentioned in the

application."

It has further been observed that:

"On careful perusal of the file as well as the

version stated by the complainant in the application,

I have come to the conclusion that neither the

alleged Rupinder Kaur appears to had made any

statement before the police during the investigation

of the case nor any such type of circumstance in any

manner has come on the file that Rupinder Kaur was

ever joined in the investigation, so her evidence

cannot be said to be essential and material evidence

for just decision of the case. Moreover, when in the

deposition already made by PW-5 mother of said

Rupinder Kaur nothing has stated by her that

Rupinder Kaur was ever joined in the investigation

or the witness in any manner of this occurrence/case

and the version stated in the application as vague.

Further, circumstances that SI Navdeep Singh to her

alleged investigating Officer who has also not been

examined by the prosecution is absconding and

stated to have been declared as proclaimed offender

and he also not stated to have been made any

material witness of the case. Further more, the

present application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has

not been filed by the learned Additional PP for the

State, but the same was filed by learned counsel for

the complainant. So, in whole discussion, I have

come to the conclusion that there is no merit at all in

the above said application under Section 311 of

Cr.P.C. Dated 5.9.2017 filed by the complainant

party. Accordingly, same is dismissed and stands

disposed of."

I find that the trial Court has properly exercised its

discretion. The order passed is not perverse and does not suffer from

any illegality or infirmity, much less apparent on the face of it. There

is no ground to interfere with the said order.

The revision petition has no legs to stand and is dismissed

accordingly.