Back
1994 Supreme(P&H) 422
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
N.K.Kapoor, J.
Kamru
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Revision No. 815 of 1993,
Decided On : MAY 4, 1994
The term "same transaction" is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether a transaction can be regarded as the same would depend on the particular facts of each case.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - CHARGE-SHEET - SECTIONS 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 452, 506 IPC - CHARGE-SHEET FRAMED AGAINST ACCUSED PERSONS FOR FORMING UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY AND CAUSING INJURIES AND DEATH - COURT HELD THAT CHARGE-SHEET WAS VALID AS IT WAS BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF THE VICTIM AND THE FACTS INDICATED A COMMON OBJECT AND UNITY OF PURPOSE AMONG THE ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
A charge-sheet was framed against 12 accused persons, including the petitioners, for allegedly forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries to several individuals, including causing the death of one person. The petitioners challenged the charge-sheet, arguing that their presence was not mentioned in the first information report (FIR) with regard to the incident of death and subsequent injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the charge-sheet was valid and could not be quashed. The court noted that the FIR contained a statement from the victim, which indicated that the accused persons had a common object and acted in furtherance of that object. The court also noted that the term "same transaction" is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure and that whether a transaction can be regarded as the same would depend on the particular facts of each case.
Issues: Whether the charge-sheet against the petitioners was valid, given that their presence was not mentioned in the FIR with regard to the incident of death and subsequent injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao and another v. AIR 1963 SC 1850, which held that whether a transaction can be regarded as the same would depend on the particular facts of each case. The court also noted that the FIR contained a statement from the victim, which indicated that the accused persons had a common object and acted in furtherance of that object.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the validity of the charge-sheet.
N.K.Kapoor, J.
1. This is a revision petition for quashing of the charge- sheet, Annexure P-5, dated 17.9 1993.
2. Briefly put, on the statement of Sher Jang S/o Chhutmal (deceased), a charge sheet was framed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, on 18.9.1992 against all the 12 accused persons including the petitioners. A copy of the charge-sheet is Annexure P-2. This charge-sheet was amended vide order dated 17.9.1993 conclusively stating that all those persons were members of unlawful assembly. In pursuance of the order dated 17.9.1993, three separate cases against the petitioners for allegedly causing injuries to Jafia wife of deceased Chhutmal; second charge sheet against all the accused persons including the petitioners for allegedly causing death of Chhutmal and injuries to three others; and third charge-sheet against four accused persons, namely, Kayyum, Mehmood Shah, Muneer and Suraj Mal. The grievance of the petitioners is that the charge-sheet Annexure P-5 against all the accused persons including the petitioners needs to be set aside/quashed on the ground that even as per narration of the events given in the first information report, presence of these petitioners is missing with regard to incident of death of Chhutmal and thereafter causing injuries to three other persons. According to the petitioners, the first information report comprises three separate incidents. The first incident relates to the alleged offence committed by the petitioners and in the second and third incident there is no presence of the petitioners. Thus the charge framed against all the accused persons needs to be modified thereby excluding the petitioners. In support of his contention, the counsel relied upon the decision of the apex Court in cases reported as Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 545; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, AIR 1979 SC 366; and Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, AIR 1990 SC 1962.
3. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, tried to justify the charges framed against the petitioners and other co-accused as per charge- sheet Annexure P-5, dated 17.9.1993. According to the counsel, the whole incident as given in the first information report forms a part of the "same transaction." The petitioners and other co-accused formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object caused injuries to Smt. Jafia wife of the deceased, caused death of Chhutmal and injuries to Farida, daughter of the deceased. Even otherwise, the charge-sheet was framed against the petitioners way back on 18.9.1992, whereas the present petition has been filled in the year 1994. Support was also sought from the decision of the apex Court in case reported as Jai Narain Mishra and others v. The State of Bihar, 1972 Crl. L.J. 469 and The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao and another, AIR 1963 SC 1850.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the decisions of the apex Court referred to by them. The case was registered as per statement of Sher Jang son of Chhutmal. As per narration given in the first information report, there was some dispute with regard to digging of foundation and on account of this grudge the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object gave injuries to Smt Jafia and thereafter killed Chhutmal and injured three others. According to the counsel for the petitioners, at the time of framing of charge, it is incumbent upon the Court to apply judicial mind for considering whether or not there is a ground for presuming the commission of offence by the accused. Framing of charges substantially affects the persons liberty. It is thus incumbent upon the Court to consider the whole question judicially. The Court is not expected to act in a mechanical manner and has, in fact, to shift the material placed befor
