KANTA BHATNAGAR, J.—In this petition under sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the Code), the petitioners have assailed the order dated June 3,1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No.l, Hanumangarh u/s.311 of the Code, as an abuse of the process of the Court.

2. A criminal case was registered against the three petitioners and one Jagdish (discharged by the trial Court) at Police Station, Hanumangarh, on the basis of the information lodged by Palaram on July 3,1982. The allegations were that Balwant Singh and Bhagwan Singh armed with gandasis Jaspal Singh armed with darant (sickle) and Jagdish armed with sword attacked him on July 3, 1982 and caused simple and grevious injuries to him with gandasi and after sometime caused injuries with those weapons to his father Hans Raj which resulted in his death. Charge-sheet against the three petitioners and one Jagdish was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh from where they were committed to stand their trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.l, Hanumangarh By the order dated February 14,1985. the learned Judge discharged Jagdish. Petitioner Jaspal Singh was charge-sheeted under sections 302,326/34324/34, Bhagwan Singh under sec. 326,324,302/34 and Balwant Singh under sec. 326/34,324/34 and 302/34 I.P.C. and they were tried for those charges. Final arguments in the case were heard on May 27,1985 and the case was adjourned to June 3, 1985 for pronouncement of judgment. On that date, the learned Judge instead of pronouncing the judgment passed the order u/s 311 of the Code impugned in this petition before this Court.

3. By the aforesaid order u/s 311 of the Code two eye witnesses viz. Pala Ram (PW 2) and Prema Ram (P.W.3) were ordered to be recalled to clarify whether gandasis and darant were used from blunt side or the sharp edged side by the three petitioners in causing injuries to Hans Raj. As is evident from the impugned order, during the course of arguments defence counsel raised the point that the medical evidence is inconsistent with the statements of the eye witnesses Pala Ram & Prem Ram, because these two witnesses have stated about the three petitioners and Jagdish using sharp edged weapons whereas the Doctor conducting the postmortem examination of Hans Raj has opined that none of the injuries found on the dead body was caused by a sharp edged weapon. The defence counsel placed reliance on the principle enunciated in the case of Hallu Vs. State of M. P. (1) wherein it was held that when a witness states about the sharp edged weapon being used then, unless he states about the blunt side of the weapon being used, there is no warrant for supposing that what the witness meant was that the blunt side of the weapon was used. The learned Judge in view of that decision and the medical opinion in the case, observed that neither the Public Prosecutor in examination-in-chief of the witnesses nor the defence counsel in cross-examination, put any question, to get it clarified whether the weapons were used from the sharp edged side or blunt side by the assailants. The learned Judge, therefore, ordered for recalling eye witnesses Pala Ram and Prema Ram to clarify the position.

4. Another witness ordered to be recalled by that order is Umed Singh (P. W. 10), the Investigating Officer of the case. The reason for feeling necessity of recalling that witness was that during the course of arguments, the defence counsel raised the point that if the nine packets containing the articles recovered in the case were deposited in the Malkhana on July 4, 1982 as mentioned in the entry Ex. P. 7 of the Malkhana Register, the prosecution case that the gandasis were recovered on July 29, 1982, after the arrest of Balwant Singh and Bhagwan Singh on July 25, 1982 and darant was recovered on September 9, 1982 after the arrest of Jaspal Singh on September 7, 1982, in pursuance of the information furnished by these three accused-petitioners,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document