Nachhattar Singh vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This is a petition filed by Nachhattar Singh invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to the respondents to register a case under Section 302 IPC and for investigation of the same by an independent agency. The facts alleged by the petitioner are that on 13.1.1996 at 3.30 A.M. Lachhman Singh son of Puran Singh had made a statement to SI Kuldip Kumar which reads :

"Stated that I am a resident of the above village. I am an agriculturist and also work as a daily wager, as we have small land holding. Because of small land holding, my brother Babu also used to work on daily wages. He often used to work on daily wages for Naib Singh, Jaswant Singh, Kulwant Singh sons of Chanda Singh, Saini, residents of village Jalalabad. Yesterday, at about 10 A.M. Kulwant Singh aforesaid took him form his house for daily waging. Today at about 2 A.M. Naib Singh, Jaswant Singh sons of Chanda Singh, Maya Chand son of Jot Ram, Prem son of Narata, Arjan Singh, Balbir Singh, residents of Jalalabad and Hem Raj, Sarpanch, Dudhan Gujran, came on a Tractortrolley to our house and said that your brother Babu Ram who had died on being run over by the Tractor and that the Tractor was being driven by Kulwant Singh and further told the occurrence took place on the Pucca Road from Devigarh to Bheve near Dudhan Sodhan and said that they have brought the dead body which was lying in the Trolley. In this connection, enquiry be held into this death and legal action should be taken. You have recorded my statement, heard (it is) correct.

LTI Lachhman Singh, Attested Sd/ Kuldip Kumar, SI/SMO Police Julkan, 13.1.1996."

On basis of the said statement an entry was made in the daily diary and investigation was taken up. An endorsement was made that Kulwant Singh was driving the tractor. Alongwith Kulwant Singh, Babu Ram and Dev Singh were sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. Kulwant Singh was driving the tractor rashly and negligently. Babu Ram was run over by the tractor and died at the spot. A case under Sections 279/304A IPC was registered. During investigation offence under Section 379 IPC was added because wrist watch and purse of Babu Ram was missing and alleged to have taken away by Kulwant Singh. A challan has been presented thus against Kulwant Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 304A/279 and 379 IPC.

The grievance of the petitioner is that in fact it is a coldblooded murder. There has been no fair investigation. A case should have been registered under Section 302 IPC. When the petitioner came to know that a case had been registered under Section 304A/279 and 379 IPC, he submitted a report to the Senior Superintendent of Police but it has not been heeded to. It was accordingly prayed that a direction should be issued to register a case under Section 302 IPC and the matter be investigated. In the meantime, the proceedings in the challan that has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate be stayed.

In the reply that has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Patiala, on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, it is not being disputed that initially a case was registered with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC. Subsequently, the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC was added. It is however denied that investigation was carried on with a biased mind. The complaint was received. It was enquired into. It was found that a case under Section 302 IPC is not attracted.

Respondent No. 4 (Kulwant Singh) filed a separate reply. According to him a case could not be registered under Section 302 IPC and he contended that the complaint has been filed because the petitioner wanted to take money from him under threat of registration of a false case.

As is apparent from the resume of facts given above, the petitioner seeks that in fact a case should be registered under Section 302 IPC rather than under Section 304A IPC. The postmortem report indicates:

"(a) crushed wound on the (L) side of scalp, forehead and face. All the bones are fractured and crushed. Brain on the (L) side is crushed. Cranial cavity showing as half the brain missing. Cranial cavity shows haemorrhage.

(b) Lacerated wound 8 cm x 5 cm on the (L) thigh on the front. Underlying bone is fractured.

(c) Multiple small and large abrasions and contusions present all over the body."

According to the doctor conducting the postmortem, the cause of death was coma due to head injury. It is obvious that major injuries were caused on the skull which was crushed on the left side.

However, the first information report has already been registered. The matter had been investigated. The police found that a case under Section 302 IPC cannot be drawn. The challan was presented in court, for the offences punishable under Sections 304A/279 and 379 IPC. When such were the facts, the ratio of the decision in the case of State of Haryana and other v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 will not be attracted. The Supreme Court had held that once the facts are brought to the notice of the court pertaining to a cognizable offence, then it should be registered. Herein the case had been registered but the dispute is as to if Section 302 Indian Penal Code be attracted or not. The attention of the Court has been drawn towards the decision of this Court in the case of Darshan Singh v. Director General of Police, Haryana, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1025 of 1995, decided on 10.5.1996. It is true that in the facts of that case it was concluded that a case should be registered punishable under Section 302 IPC and proceedings in the other case registered under Section 304A IPC be stayed. But the difference that can easily be noticed is that present case is not one of those cases where one can outright say that there has been a foul play during investigation. In the present case, statements of Dev Singh witness are being read for and against the assertions of the prosecution. In these circumstances, it is appropriate that the Court where the trial is pending for the offences punishable under Sections 304A/279 and 379 IPC will record evidence. If during the course of trial, it is found that any other offence is drawn, the said Court in its discretion in accordance with law may take cognizance and act accordingly. The fact as to what is that material on the record can be argued before the said court. The said Court may even if necessary commit the case to the court of Sessions. At this stage, keeping in view the totality of facts and the circumstances, it will not be appropriate to direct the trial of the said case to be stopped.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of .