Balbir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr
- SCC(2009) 15 SCC 219
- Neutral2009 INSC 768
- AIRAIR 2009 SC Supp 2242
- SCR[2009] 8 SCR 489
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where conflicting versions of events exist in a criminal matter, the police is not obligated to register separate First Information Reports for each version, but must present the entire investigation before the court in a manner that allows the court—and not the police acting unilaterally—to determine which version is credible and whether any defence such as self-defence is available. Where a person makes a statement to police recording an allegation of crime against a third party, and the police investigation concludes that statement to be false, the police may proceed on the basis of its investigative findings and submit the case to the court for determination without registering a separate FIR on the unsubstantiated version, provided all evidence is presented before the court to allow it to assess the matter independently. The cognizance of charges by a court is taken on the basis of the accusations brought before it through the charge sheet and not on the basis of conflicting versions or cross-versions that may arise during investigation; the court's function is to adjudicate the case placed before it on evidence, and the fact that a cross-version exists does not itself require the court to redirect investigation or registration of separate FIRs before proceeding to trial.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Balbir Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and Anr. ...Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single
Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Respondent No.2 in the
present appeal filed a petition seeking investigation of the cross version in
FIR 43 dated 6.2.2006 registered at Police Station, City Abohar, in relation
to the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and for entrusting the
investigation of the same to an independent agency. The aforesaid FIR was
registered on the basis of statement made by the present appellant. The
petitioner before the High Court i.e. present respondent No.2 is the wife of
Gaganjit Singh, who had two brothers, namely, Gurdeep Singh and Gurjit
Singh. Though, according to Balbir Singh, first informant, Gurjit Singh was
killed in the emergency ward of Civil Hospital, Abohar, by a group of
people which had come from the Truck Union, yet Gaganjit Singh claimed
that his brother Gurjit Singh was killed by Balbir Singh, first informant and
others on 6.2.2006 at 4.30 P.M. when Gaganjit Singh was first attacked and
given injuries at the Truck Union and while being removed to the hospital
by Gurjit Singh and others and had reached in front of the hospital where
2 Balbir Singh was standing while carrying a pistol in his hand, which he used
to fire at Gurjit Singh. As a result of the same, said Gurjit Singh died. The
statement of Gaganjit Singh was recorded on 7.2.2006 when he was
admitted in Civil Hospital, Malout, but in spite of the same, no action was
taken against Balbir Singh and others for the murder of Gurjit Singh and for
causing injuries to Gaganjit Singh. Instead final report under Section 173 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `Code') was submitted
against Gaganjit Singh and Inderjit Singh for the murder of Baljit Singh.
Therefore, it was prayed that appropriate legal action be taken into the cross
version based on the statement of Gaganjit Singh and keeping in view the
partisan attitude of the local police which was acting at the instance of local
M.L.A., the investigation of the said cross-version be entrusted to an
independent agency.
During investigation of the case the version given by Gaganjit Singh,
the husband of respondent No.2 was found to be false. No injury was
received by said Gaganjit at Truck Union, Abohar. In fact, it was Gaganjit
Singh who had caused fire arm injury to Baljit Singh, brother of the present
appellant-complainant of the case. After hearing the parties the High Court
directed as follows:
3
"Although, the police was not required to register separate FIR into the cross version set up by Gaganjit Singh but the minimum it could do was to present the entire investigation before the Court and only then the Court could decide as to which of the two versions was correct. The police on its own could not decide that the murder of Gurjit Singh and causing of injuries to Gaganjit Singh was in the exercise of right of self defence of person by the complainant party. However, in the given circumstances the Court finds that the police ought to have registered an FIR against the offenders in relation to the murder of Gurjit Singh and causing of injuries to Gaganjit Singh so that if the same was to be later on cancelled, after its due investigation, the police would be required to submit the cancellation report in the appropriate court and obtain its order."
3. It is the stand of the appellant that the direction issued to register the
FIR on the basis of statements of Gaganjit Singh recorded on 7.2.2006 and
proceed with the case in accordance with law is not sustainable. It is pointed
out that in the FIR 43 of 2006 there was mention of incident as well as the
retaliation. The statement of Gaganjit Singh was recorded on 7.2.2006
wherein he took the plea that the firing was by the appellant and Gurjit
Singh had died. No FIR was lodged regarding the cross version. Charges
have been framed on 15.6.2006. The complaint was filed by Gaganjit Singh
on 21.8.2006. Cognizance has been taken qua the accusations and not in
respect of the controversy.
4
4. In peculiar circumstances, we dispose of the appeal in modification of
the impugned order with the direction that the complaint case shall be taken
to its logical end. It needs no indication that the concerned Court shall deal
with the matter on the basis of evidence laid before it. We make it clear that
we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
..........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
..........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi, May 08, 2009
5
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free