Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

IN T Amrik Sin State of Pu CORAM: Present:

GURVIND

¶1The petiti learned Se complaina examinatio Gurpreet S

¶2The matte Station Sa instance o

6.30 AM, and sister agricultura Singh, cam Amrik Sin coloured c THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ CHANDIGA CRR-1800 Date of D

ngh

Versus unjab & another

: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advo Mr. Amandeep S. Manaise, A for the petitioner.

DER SINGH GILL, J. ioner (accused) assails order d essions Judge, Gurdaspur vide w ant under Section 311 read with on of PW-9 Jarnail Singh, PW Singh has been allowed. er arises out of FIR No.66 dated adar Gurdaspur, under Sections of Jarnail Singh, wherein it is st he alongwith his son Gurpreet -in-law Manjit Kaur had gone al activities. At about 7.30 AM me there on a tractor with 'rotava ngh alongwith his daughter Jy car. Amrik Singh was having a JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH 0-2024 (O&M)

ecision: 17.09.2024

...Petitioner

...Respondents GURVINDER SINGH GILL ocate, with

Advocate,

dated 27.08.2024 passed by th which an application filed by th Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for re W-10 Manjit Kaur and PW-1 d 29.05.2021 registered at Polic 302, 307, 34 IPC lodged at th tated that on 29.05.2021 at abou Singh, brother Balwinder Sing e to their fields to attend som M, Jony, driver of accused Amri ator' attached. By the same time yoti also came there in a blac a .315 rifle on his shoulder and

he he e-ce he ut gh me ik e, ck a pistol in h while his finger crop Singh obst around th 'Chacha K developme closer. W Singh tried took out h Amrik Sin and yet an started run at his back

¶3The matte investigati Singh, wh were found

¶4Pursuant t evidence. deceased, of the com box on 05 from their and did no is right hand. Thereafter, Amrik daughter exhorted him (Amrik p in the fields of Balwinder Si tructs them, a lesson be taught he same time, Jatinder Singh, Karde Kam, Bach Ke Na Ja ents, the complainant and his When Balwinder Singh and his d to stop Amrik Singh from da his pistol and fired on Balwin ngh fired another shot hitting th nother shot hitting her above ri nning to save himself, Amrik Si k. Balwinder Singh died at the sp er was investigated by the p ion, challan was filed against Am hereas Jyoti @ Sumandeep Kau d innocent. to framing of charges against t However, when Jarnail Singh Manjit Kaur i.e. widow of the d mplainant, who were all eye-wit .09.2022 as PW-9 to PW-11 res r previous statements recorded d ot support the case of prosecution k Singh started driving the tracto k Singh) to mow down the lad ingh and that in case Balwinde to him. It is further alleged tha Sarpanch also raised a lalkar aan'. Upon noticing the sai son Gurpreet Singh also rushe wife Manjit Kaur and Gurpree amaging their crop, Amrik Sing nder Singh hitting on his ches he right shoulder of Manjit Kau ght thigh. When Gupreet Sing ingh also fired at him hitting him pot. police and upon conclusion o mrik Singh and Jony @ Harjoh ur and Jatinder Singh, Sarpanc the accused, the prosecution le (complainant) i.e. brother of th deceased and Gurpreet Singh, so tnesses, stepped into the witness spectively, they absolutely resile during the course of investigatio n.

or dy er at ra id ed et gh st. ur gh m of hn ch ed he on s-ed

¶5While PW the occurr PW-10 Ma stand that in the field motor-cyc identify th

¶6All the afo trial proce terms of S evidence, Gurpreet S themselve of the accu the Court. dated 27.0

¶7Learned s submitted stage, whe is nothing them. Le witnesses and were inasmuch

05.09.2022 person ha W-9 Jarnail Singh stated that he w rence had taken place and was a anjit Kaur and PW-11 Gurpeet when they were working alongw ds, two unidentified persons wit le and both of them fired tow he assailants. oresaid three eye-witnesses were eeded further and the statements Section 313 Cr.P.C. When the m complainant – Jarnail Singh as w Singh moved an application se s while pleading that they were u used, who had pressurized them The said application was allow

08.2024, which has been impugn senior counsel appearing on b that the aforesaid application ha en the matter was at the stage of , but a ploy to black-mail the ac earned senior counsel submitted i.e. the complainant and the inj forced into making their earlie as when the statements we 2, accused Amrik Singh was in c aving chronic heart ailment. was never present at the spot whe away to Sabzi Mandi, Gurdaspu Singh, who were injured, took with Balwinder Singh (deceased th muffled faces came there on wards them and they could no e declared hostile. However, th s of the accused were recorded i matter was at the stage of defenc well as injured - Manjit Kaur an eeking permission to re-examin under duress and undue influenc m to make false statements befor wed by the trial Court vide orde ed before this Court. behalf of the petitioner/accuse as been filed at the highly belate f recording defence evidence an ccused and to extort money from d that the contention of the eye jured, that they were pressurize er statements cannot be accepte ere recorded in the Court o custody, who otherwise is an age Learned senior counsel furthe

en ur, a d) a ot he in ce nd ne ce re er ed ed nd m e-ed ed on ed submitted terms of S case the ey seriously p

¶8This Court

¶9While it is filed at a b cannot be Section 31 judgment. of one per case where of the witn in the sam Balwinder recovered 5 empty c

30.05.202 the disclos

¶10While it is recorded i had been had been d

23.08.2022 the witnes before the that the statement of the accused Section 313 Cr.P.C., their defenc ye-witnesses are re-examined at prejudiced. t has considered the aforesaid su s correct that the application for belated stage, but there is no abso filed belatedly. Rather, it is wel 11 Cr.P.C. can be filed at any sta The case in hand is a case wher son and attempt to murder two o e many exaggerations have been nesses are stamped witnesses ha me very occurrence from the sam r Singh. The weapon of offe from the petitioner Amrik Singh cartridges i.e. on the very nex

¶1On 01.06.2021, .315 bore rif sure statement suffered by the pe s correct that as on day when the i.e. on 05.09.2022, accused Amr availing interim bail on medica directed to surrender before the j

¶2In other words, it was just ab sses deposed in the Court tha jail authorities and otherwise ha d having already been recorded i ce already stands disclosed and i this stage, the accused will stan ubmissions. r re-examining the witnesses wa olute rule that such an applicatio ll-settled that an application unde age before pronouncement of th rein serious allegations of murde others have been made. It is not n made by the complainant. Tw aving sustained gun shot injurie me weapon, which was used to ki ence i.e. .32 revolver had bee h alongwith 5 live cartridges an xt day of the occurrence i.e. o fle was also recovered pursuant t etitioner. e statements of the witnesses wer rik Singh was in custody, but h al grounds since 21.04.2022 an jail authorities on the morning o out 12 days prior to the day whe at Amrik Singh had surrendere ad been on interim bail for a goo

in in nd as on er he er a wo es ill en nd on to re he nd of en ed 4 months a pressurize

¶11While resi can hardly of the ca witnesses suspect pa accused ar neither a c that at on

25.05.2022 were pres heinous o when the coerced to appropriat afforded p amount to accused (p the re-call are not go case. The record.

¶12Hon'ble th Sheikh & where the and during which period he wou and coerce witnesses. iling of witnesses or taking an y be appreciated, but having rega se where the witnesses i.e. th are close relatives of the decea articularly when the witnesses w re also known to them and are case of belated FIR nor a case of ne stage the complainant had 2 (Annexure P-4) to SSP conc surizing them. The instant ca ffences i.e. offence of murder witnesses themselves come up o resile from their earlier statem te that opportunity for re-exam particularly when re-examinatio filling lacunae in prosecution c petitioner), as he will be given f ed witnesses and the earlier stat ing to be absolutely erased and e Courts should always make he Supreme Court in a case re & others Vs. State of Gujarat witnesses had resiled and the uld have got ample opportunity t absolute volte-face by a witnes ard to the facts and circumstance he complainant and the injure ased, their resiling become rathe were themselves injured and th specifically named in FIR. It i exaggerations. Rather, it appear d also moved application date cerned pointing out that accuse ase pertains to one of the mos and under these circumstance with a plea that they have bee ments, this Court does not deem mination of the witnesses be no on of the said witnesses will no case or cause any prejudice to th full opportunity to cross-examin tements made by these witnesse wiped out from the record of th an endeavour to bring truth o eported as Zahira Habibulla H t & others, AIR 2004 SC 346 accused had been acquitted an

to ss es ed er he is rs ed ed st s, en m ot ot he ne es he on H. 6, said acqui trial by re held as und "41. ttal had also been upheld by the e-examining the witnesses. In p der:

"Witnesses" as Benthem said: Hence, the importance and prim If the witness himself is incapac of justice, the trial gets putrefi can constitute a fair trial. The in factors like the witness being n control to speak the truth in t ignorance or some corrupt collu on account of numerous experie frequent turning of witnesses coercion, lures and monetary those in power, their henchme patronage and innumerable ot adopted to smoother and stifle surface rendering truth and jus Broader public and societal inte crime who are not ordinarily pa of State represented by their p even in slow process but irrev allowed would undermine and administration of justice, whi anarchy, oppression and injustic and collapse of the edifice of r guarded and protected by the C for protecting the witness. T undiluted thoughts are to be be that ultimate truth is present triumphs and that the trial is not a definite role to play in protec least in sensitive cases involvin patronage and could wield mus getting tainted and derailed an e High Court, still ordered for re para 41 of judgment, it has bee are the eyes and ears of justice macy of the quality of trial proces citated from acting as eyes and ear ied and paralysed, and it no longe ncapacitation may be due to severa not in a position for reasons beyon the Court or due to negligence o usion. Time has become ripe to ac ences faced by Courts on account o as hostile, either due to threat y considerations at the instance o en and hirelings, political clouts an ther corrupt practices ingenuousl e truth and realities coming out t tice, to become ultimate casualtie erests require that the victims of th arties to prosecution and the interest prosecuting agencies do not suffe versibly and irretrievably, which d destroy public confidence in th ich may ultimately pave way fo ce resulting in complete breakdow rule of law, enshrined and jealousl Constitution. There comes the nee ime has come when serious an estowed for protecting witnesses s ted before the Court and justic t reduced to mockery. The State ha cting the witnesses, to start with a ng those in power, who has politica scle and money power, to avert tria nd truth becoming a casualty. As

e-en e. s. rs er al nd or ct of s, of nd ly to s. he ts er if he or wn ly ed nd so ce as at al al a

¶13It has been "45.

protector of its citizens it has to the witness could safely depos haunted by those against whom enactments like the Terrorist an Act, 1987 (in short the 'TAD reluctance shown by witness criminals-terrorists. In a milde hesitation of witnesses to de power, money power or politic the day. If ultimately truth is to justice have to be protected so th incapacitated in the sense of ma mere mock trials as are usually n further held as under:

It is not that in every case w evidence before Court wants to speak differently, that the Court such request by lending its assi one way earlier comes before th he is prepared to give evidence what he has given earlier at the lapse, the Court can consider th context as to whether the party speak the truth earlier and in an that the power is to be exercise exception to the ordinary rule o records received in exceptional Court can neither feel powerles the truth and satisfy the ends of guided by the metaphor, separa case which has telltale imprint in the prayer, the same has to b worth, credibility and the accep material sought to be brought in o ensure that during a trial in Cou se truth without any fear of bein m he has deposed. Some legislativ nd Disruptive Activities (Prevention DA Act') have taken note of th ses to depose against dangerou er form also the reluctance and th epose against people with muscl cal power has become the order o o be arrived at, the eyes and ears o hat the interests of justice do not ge aking the proceedings before Court seen in movies." (…emphasis supplied) where the witness who had give change his mind and is prepared t t concerned should readily accede t istance. If the witness who depose he appellate Court with a prayer tha e which is materially different from trial with the reasons for the earlie he genuineness of the prayer in th concerned had a fair opportunity t n appropriate case accept it. It is no ed in a routine manner, but being a of disposal of appeal on the basis o cases or extraordinary situation th ss nor abdicate its duty to arrive a f justice. The Court can certainly b ate the grain from the chaff, and in of reasonableness and genuinenes be accepted, at least to consider th ptability of the same on merits of th n."

urt ng ve n) he us he le of of et ts d). en to to ed at m er he to ot an of he at be a ss he

¶14Upon analy that justic allowed a examinatio decision o

¶15The facts above cite from a vie the impug and is here

17.09.2024 Vimal

ysis, it is a duty cast upon a cour ce prevails. An application und at any stage of trial, if the on of any such person appears f the case. of the present case, when exam ed judgment, do not leave any r ew as has been taken by the tria ned order, the same is hereby up eby dismissed.

(GU

rt to arrive at the truth and ensur der Section 311 Cr.P.C. may b courts are of the opinion tha to it to be essential to the jus mined in the light of ratio of th room for taking a different view al Court. Finding no infirmity i pheld. The petition is sans mer URVINDER SINGH GILL)

JUDGE

re be at st he w in