Allowed

Nanak Singh v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC15 Nov 2017CRLR/1227/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal revisions seeking to quash the trial court's order framing charges for attempted murder. Finding the FIR highly delayed, the eye-witness account contradictory, and injuries superficial, the Court held the prosecution case was fabricated and discharged the accused.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order framing charges was quashed, and the accused petitioners were discharged from all offences.

Nanak Singh Vs State and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 5 / 2017

¶3

Gurdas Singh S/o Shri Raja Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 12 Blm, P.s. Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan 2. Navnit Singh S/o Shri Gurbachan Singh, R/o 6 O(a), P.s. Kesarisinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1227 / 2016 Nanak Singh S/o Shri Bahal Singh, Ward No.8 Sri Vijaynagar District Sri Ganganagar.

¶7

----Petitioner Versus

¶8

The State of Rajasthan

¶9

Navnit Singh S/o Shri Gurbachan Singh, 6 o (a) P.s Kesarisinghpur District Sri Ganganagar.

¶10

----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.J.D.S.Bhati.

¶11

For Respondent(s) : Mr.R.K.Bohra, P.P.

¶12

Mr.H.S.Sandhu.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶14

Judgment / Order

¶15

Date of Pronouncement : 15/11/2017

¶16

These two revisions are directed against the order dated 23.9.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur in Sessions Case No.3/2015 whereby charges were framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections

(2 of 7)

[CRLR-5/2017]

[ CRLR-1227/2016]

307, 323 read with 34 I.P.C.

¶21

Facts in brief are that the complainant respondent submitted

¶22

a written report before the S.H.O. P.S. Kesarisinghpur on 28.11.2014 alleging inter-alia that he was a resident of Chak 6- O(A), Tehsil Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar and was posted as a Teacher in the Govt. Primary School, Dhani Baghelsing. He was on duty in the school on 10.9.2014 and noticed a Bolero vehicle doing rounds around the school and the nearby area in a suspicious manner. He left the school for his village at about 3.50 PM after duty hours. When he reached the Karanpur road on his motorcycle, he saw the same bolero vehicle charging towards him from the direction of Chak 6-O(B). The driver of the bolero intentionally collided the vehicle with his motorcycle with the intention of killing him as a result whereof, he fell down. The vehicle was stopped at some distance and he could see the number thereof as RJ13.UA.6440. A person named Kaka Singh came at the spot and picked him up. The complainant saw that the vehicle was being driven by Bittu @ Gurdas contractor of Srivijaynagar and Nanak Singh and few others were sitting therein. He further alleged that Nanak Singh who was his relative was bearing ill will towards him and had hurled threats that he would either kill the complainant or that he would be implicated in such a case that he would remain in jail life long. The complainant alleged that Nanak Singh conspired with his friend Bittu and 2-3 other persons and intentionally collided the bolero vehicle with his motorcycle with the intention of killing him. Had the complainant

(3 of 7)

[CRLR-5/2017]

[ CRLR-1227/2016]

not taken the motorcycle aside by way of an evasive measure, he would certainly have been killed. The complainant further alleged that immediately after the incident, he went to the Police Station Kesarisinghpur and his injuries were examined by the government doctor. On that day, he informed the Police Officers that he would give the statement after making thorough inquiry. However, after his medical examination reports had arrived, the accused persons started threatening him with dire consequences and hence, fearing reprisal, he could not file a timely report. On the basis of this written report, an F.I.R. No.360/2014 was registered at the P.S. Kesarisinghpur for the aforesaid offences and investigation commenced. Upon concluding investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the accused petitioners for these offences. The accused persons moved an application for discharge before the trial court which was rejected vide order dated 23.9.2016 which is under challenge in these two revisions.

¶27

Shri J.D.S.Bhati learned counsel representing the petitioners drew the Court’s attention towards the F.I.R. and the medical certificates of the injured Navneet Singh and urged that ex-facie, from these documents and the entire material collected by the Investigating Officer, it is impossible to believe that the accused intended to kill the complainant. He further urged that the theory putforth by the complainant in the highly belated F.I.R. that the accused collided their vehicle with his motorcycle with the intention of killing the complainant and that he could identify the

(4 of 7)

[CRLR-5/2017]

[ CRLR-1227/2016]

accused is per-se unworthy of credence. The injuries suffered by the injured were totally superficial in nature as per the initial medico-legal report. The medical report which the complainant

¶32

claims to be prepared on 10.9.2014 is a fabricated report because when information was sought from the hospital under RTI Act, the petitioners accused were given a categoric reply that the injured Navneet Singh did not came to the hospital on 10.9.2014 or 11.9.2014. He thus implored the Court to quash and set aside the impugned order.

¶33

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri H.S.Sandhu learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Bhati and urged that even strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charge against the accused. As per them, the trial court duly and thoroughly appreciated the entire material available on record and has recorded a clinching finding to the effect that the accused persons acted in such a manner which gives rise to a reasonable inference that their intention was to kill the injured. The nature of injuries is not determinative factor while considering the aspect of charges. The intention and knowledge of the accused are the determinative factors. They thus urged that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the learned trial Court.

¶34

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the material available on record.

¶35

There is no doubt about the legal principle buttressed by

(5 of 7)

[CRLR-5/2017]

[ CRLR-1227/2016]

learned counsel Shri Sandhu that the determinative factor while considering the aspect of charge under Section 307 I.P.C. is not the actual nature of injuries caused to the injured but the intent and knowledge of the accused. However, the question which this Court has to examine is whether the admitted allegations made by

¶40

the complainant and the material collected by the Investigating Officer is sufficient so as to give rise to such an inference that the accused intended to kill the complainant. The most material loophole in the prosecution story is that the F.I.R. came to be lodged as late as on 28.11.2014 i.e. after more than 2 months and 18 days of the incident. The complainant has offered a lame explanation in the written report that the accused were threatening him and that is why, he did not go the Police Station for reporting the matter. However, even as per the admitted case of the complainant, he had gone to the Police Station on the very day of the incident from where a Constable accompanied him for getting his medical report prepared. When the complainant was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he categorically stated that after his medical examination was conducted on the day of the incident, he informed the Police Officer that he would make an inquiry and thereafter, he would give the statement and get the case registered. Thus, apparently, the complainant was marking time to create evidence so as to implicate the accused in this patently false case. The plea putforth by the complainant in the belated F.I.R. and in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that after colliding the vehicle with his motorcycle, the

¶41

(6 of 7)

¶42

[CRLR-5/2017] [ CRLR-1227/2016]

¶43

accused persons stopped the vehicle at some distance and he could identify them in this manner is per-se concocted and fictitious. It is impossible to believe that the complainant could identify the accused persons, who were sitting inside the bolero vehicle while standing behind. There is yet another significant and material contradiction inter-se between the statement of the complainant and the statement of the eye-witness Kaka Singh @ Kulwant Singh. The complainant Navneet Singh alleged that after colliding the vehicle with his motorcycle, the accused persons stopped the vehicle at some distance ahead. However, Kaka Singh @ Kulwant Singh alleged that the accused stopped the vehicle at some distance from the place of the occurrence and then drove the same reverse with the intention of hitting Navneet Singh again. This story is totally missing in the statement of Navneet Singh. On going through the injury report of Naveneet Singh prepared at the Govt. Hospital Kesarisinghpur on 10.9.2014, it is apparent that he suffered simple superficial injuries on his hands and on his hip region. Thus by no stretch of imagination, necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. can be held to be made out against the accused persons. Ex-facie, this Court is of the firm opinion that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer is not sufficient to send the accused for trial for any offence whatsoever because the prosecution case appears to be prima-facie false and fabricated.

¶44

Resultantly, the revisions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 23.9.2016 passed by the

(7 of 7)

[CRLR-5/2017]

[ CRLR-1227/2016]

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur in Sessions Case No.3/2015 whereby the application for discharge submitted by the accused petitioners was rejected and a direction was given to frame charges against them for the offences under Sections 307, 323 read with 34 I.P.C. is hereby quashed. The accused petitioners

¶49

are discharged from all the offences.

¶50

A copy of this order be placed in both the files.

¶51

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J.

¶52

/tarun goyal/

Nanak Singh v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanak Singh v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Harma Ram and Anr.

M/S Shree Plylem Vs Smt Kavita

Au Financiers India Ltd. Vs State and Anr.

Mahendra Vs State and Anr.

State Vs Ram Chandra @ Ramu

Smt.Mamta Vs State and Anr.