Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SUDHIR MITTAL, J.
BIKRAMJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 2117 of 2016
Decided on : 07-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
P.S. Ahluwalia, Adv., Luvinder Sofat, Adv., Tarun Sharma, Adv., R.S. Bajaj, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the legality of clubbing cases under the Criminal Procedure Code when the offences are committed in the same transaction.
Headnote:
Clubbing of Cases - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 205 IPC - Section 210 Cr.P.C. - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused in a case involving the death of Balwant Singh. The trial court consolidated the FIR with a complaint case and framed charges under various sections of the IPC. The petitioners challenged the consolidation and the charge under Section 205 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the charge under Section 205 IPC but upheld the clubbing of the State case and the complaint case. It found no error in the trial court's order directing the examination of all witnesses mentioned in the challan.
Issues: The issues included the sustainability of the charge under Section 205 IPC and the legality of clubbing the two cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charge under Section 205 IPC was not sustainable and quashed it. It also determined that the clubbing of the cases was legal, as the offences were committed in the same transaction.
Final Decision: The revision petition was partially allowed, quashing the charge under Section 205 IPC but upholding the clubbing of the State case and the complaint case.
SUDHIR MITTAL, J.
1. The petitioners are the accused in FIR No.195 dated 17.8.2002, registered at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur. Vide impugned order dated 9.5.2016 (P2), the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, has consolidated the said FIR with a complaint case and has directed that all the witnesses mentioned in the State case be examined afresh. Further, in the complaint case, charges have been framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sections, 201, 120-B and 205 IPC.
2. Facts in brief are that deceased Balwant Singh and his uncle Karnail Singh son of Kartar Singh drove together in a car bearing No.PB-08-T-1457 on 17.8.2002. When the car reached near the shops in front of village Daburgi, the car accidentally scraped a motorcycle going ahead as a result of which, the motorcycle fell down. The said motorcycle was being driven by one Satwinder Singh son of Joginder Singh alongwith pillion rider. Both these persons confronted Balwant Singh and Karnail Singh resulting in an altercation. The person riding pillion quietly slipped away and in the meanwhile, one Bikramjit Singh (Sarpanch) and his son Kuljit Singh @ Satwinder Singh @ Sonu reached the spot and started hitting Balwant Singh. They beat him up severely and while this was going on, a truck came from behind. Balwant Singh tried to escape by boarding the truck from co-driver side, but the assailants pulled him down. The head of Balwant Singh struck the side of the rear wheel of the truck and he suffered serious injuries. Resultantly, he died while being taken to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. FIR under Section 304 IPC was registered on the complaint of Karnail Singh son of Kartar Singh aforementioned.
3. Satwinder Singh son of Joginder Singh was tried separately and was acquitted vide judgment dated 1.4.2003 delivered by the learned Sessions Jude, Hoshiarpur. Against the petitioners, charges were framed on 8.8.2003. Thereafter, Kulwant Singh (brother of deceased Balwant Singh) preferred a private complaint No.76 of 2003, under Sections 302, 304, 34, 201, 205 and 120-B IPC and named the petitioners and Satwinder Singh son of Joginder Singh alongwith Karnail Singh son of Kartar Singh as accused. In the year 2006, charges were framed against the said four accused and the trial of the State case as well as the complaint case was proceeding separately in the same Court. The charges were assailed by Satwinder Singh son of Joginder Singh and Karnail Singh son of Kartar Singh before this Court. Vide judgment dated 27.8.2012, said Satwinder Singh was discharged and private complaint No.76 of 2003 qua him was quashed. Vide separate judgment of even date, aforesaid Karnail Singh was also discharged and private complaint No.76 of 2003 was quashed qua him as well. The said judgments were upheld by the Supreme Court and SLP thereagainst was dismissed on 1.3.2016.
4. Thus, proceedings commenced before the trial Court. The complainant in compliant No.76 of 2003 contended that in view of the fact that Satwinder Singh son of Joginder Singh and Karnail Singh son of Kartar Singh had been discharged, fresh charges were to be framed against the petitioners. It was also contended that the State case and the complaint case be consolidated. The consolidation was objected to by the learned defence counsel, however, vide aforementioned impugned order, the trial Court ordered consolidation. Charges were framed afresh and all the witnesses mentioned in challan were directed to be summoned for various dates.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that charge under Section 205 IPC could not have been framed as there is no allegation of impersonation against the accused persons. Neither in challan presented in State case nor in the private compliant, there is any averment or evidence, which may indicate impersonation by the petitioners and of making any statement or confessing judgment or doing any other act in a criminal case in such assumed character. Thus, the
