CRR-495-2021

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

CRR-495-2021

Date of Decision: 27.04.2021

Baljinder Singh @ Kaka

Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:

Mr. Jimmy Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Monika Jalota, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

****

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

The matter is taken up for hearing through video

conference due to COVID-19 situation.

This criminal revision petition is filed being aggrieved of

order dated 19^th March, 2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Barnala.

The prayer under Section 311 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') for further cross-examination of

ASI Gurmeet Singh, Investigating Officer (hereinafter 'I.O.') and the

complainant was declined.

The brief facts of the case are that on the statement of

Harpreet Kaur, FIR No. 87, dated 9^th June, 2019, under Sections 452,

324, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered at Police

PANKAJ BAWEJA

2021.04.28 12:30

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

CRR-495-2021

-2-

Station Dhanaula, District Barnala. It was stated that she was working

as house-hold help. Her husband died in the year 2013. On 8^th June,

2019 at about 6 P.M., Baljinder Singh @ Kaka s/o Buta Singh came near

residence of complainant. Her mother-in-law who was standing in the

street, objected to accused roaming in the street. The accused forcibly

entered in the house of the complainant with an iron rod in his hand.

He slapped the complainant and tried to molest her. When mother-in-

law of the complainant tried to rescue, the accused after hitting threw

her on the ground. The accused gave blows on left leg, the front side of

her right leg and on the knee of the complainant. She was taken to

Community Health Centre, Dhanola from where she was referred to the

Civil Hospital, Barnala.

During the trial, statement of I.O. was recorded wherein he

stated that the site plan was prepared and a Sabal (iron rod) was

recovered at the instance of the accused. In the MLR, injury No.1 was

declared grievous in nature. In his cross-examination, the defence

posed questions to establish that there was prior enmity between the

accused and the complainant. Suggestions were put that the

complainant was demanding a plot of land and she in connivance with

her mother in law, falsely implicated the accused.

The complainant in her statement supported the allegations

in the FIR. In cross-examination, suggestion was made by the defence

that accused was named only to extort a chunk of plot in an agricultural

land.

PANKAJ BAWEJA

2021.04.28 12:30

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

CRR-495-2021

-3-

The defence examined Buta Singh (father of the accused)

who alleged that he had moved an application levelling allegations

against the accused and the complainant. It was stated that as per the

application, certain cash and ornaments were found missing from his

Almirah. Later, he came to know that the complainant had enticed his

son to remove ornaments and cash. It was further stated that the

accused, being a drug addict, was admitted in de-addiction centre. Out

of the said cash, a second hand Scooty was purchased. During

investigation it transpired that ornaments were pledged. Further, that

a Panchayati compromise was effected with regard to complaint of

Buta Singh.

On the basis of the examination of Buta Singh, further

cross- examination of the complainant and I.O. was sought.

Mr. Jimmy Singla, learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that certain new facts came to light in deposition of

Buta Singh, hence there was need to further cross-examine the

complainant and I.O. The contention raised is that a lenient view

should be taken while dealing with the application under Section 311 of

Cr.P.C.

Ms. Monika Jal