IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.18593-M of 2010 Date of Decision:7.3.2011 Manjit Kaur .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Jastej Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for transferring the investigation of case FIR No.144 dated 23.4.2010 for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Tripri Town, District Patiala to an independent investigating agency, as respondents No.1 to 3 have not investigated the matter in a free and fair manner. Upon notice, reply by way of counter affidavit of Satbir Singh Atwal, P.P.S. Deputy Superintendent of Police (City-II), Patiala on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has been filed. As per paras 1 to 4 of the preliminary submissions besides stating that a thorough investigation was conducted, it is submitted as under: “In the intervening night of 25/26.3.2010 a Jagrata (Jagran) was held in Village Chalela by all the villagers jointly. Most of the people joined in the Jagrata but Tarsem Crl. M. No.18593-M of 2010 -2- Singh (since now deceased/husband of the petitioner) did not come present. He was present in his house. Respondent No.4-Dalbir Singh son of Shamsher Singh (uncle of Tarsem Singh in relation) went to the house of the Tarsem Singh on his motor cycle. Respondent No.4 brought Tarsem Singh on his motor cycle where Jagrata was going on. Both of them consumed liquor and they were roaming on the motor cycle. Motor cycle was being driven by respondent No.4. Few villagers advised them not to do so. But they did not pay any heed to it. Tubewell motors of both of them are nearer to each other and they used to consume liquor there together. At about 1:30 a.m. in the mid night they went towards village Dhatonda from village Chalela through Kacha passage on the motor cycle of respondent No.4, which was being driven by him and Tarsem Singh was riding on the pillion seat of the motor cycle. They were in drunken condition at that time. They were seen by Harinder Singh son of Udey Singh, wh was irrigating his wheat Barsem fodder in his fields at that time. Both Tarsem Singh and Dalbir Singh fallen down from the Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle being in drunken condition. Lakhbir Singh brother of respondent No.4- Dalbir Singh came at the spot, who was also irrigating his fields and Harwinder Singh son of Shamsher Singh also came there after dropping Balwant Singh son of Sardara Singh to his house from Jagrata, whose house is also Crl. M. No.18593-M of 2010 -3- situated on the same path. As per version of these persons, respondent No.4 suffered minor injuries but Tarsem Singh suffered internal injury on his head and he became unconscious. Gurjant Singh son of Sardara Singh and Harinder Singh @ Makhan son of Pal Singh also came there, who is brother of Tarsem Singh in relation. After lifting Tarsem Singh they made him to sit on the motor cycle of Gurjant Singh and Gurjant Singh sat behind Tarsem Singh to take care of him. They brought Tarsem Singh to his house and laid him on the cot, where his wife (petitioner), his mother and grand-father were present. On seeing the condition of Tarsem Singh, his family members removed him to Bhandari Hospital, Patiala. He was shifted to D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana as he was serious. On 26.3.2010, Dr. Anurag Singla has written in C.R. No.33793 that “Alleged U/o RSA while pt. was sitting behind bike & got slipped on road & affect of alcohol. During treatment Tarsem Singh expired on 21.4.2010 at D.M.C. Ludhiana. Post mortem examination on the dead body was conducted by board of doctors. In the postmortem examination Cause of death has written as “Pulmonary embolism as a result of head injury, sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries described are ante-mortem. A written request was made to Head & Prof. Forensic Science Laboratory, Medical College, Patiala to confirm whether injury on the head could be result of accident or due to hit Crl. M. No.18593-M of 2010 -4- by some other material. Three doctors gave their opinion that “After going through the postmortem report, it is not possible to comment clearly whether the injury on the back of head (Right occipital region) is sustained in accident i.e. road side accident or from Assonet. This injury is as a result of blunt force. The craniotomy of left side of head indicates surgical removal of blood from brain due to head injury. To clear the case forties, circumstantial evidence may be taken into consideration”. From the investigation of the case and above facts a case under Section 304-A IPC was made out against respondent No.4, whereas other persons were found innocent in the case.” Accordingly, challan under Section 304-A was filed against respondent No.4. Whereas, other respondents were found innocent in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, disputed the said finding and stated that as per the allegation of the complainant, the accused persons had brought her husband in an unconscious and badly injured condition. The very fact that he was alive when he was brought home shows that there was no intention to kill. Moreover, whether it is a case under Section 304-A IPC or 304- II IPC or any other Section is a question to be determined by the trial Court at the time of framing of charge or as and when the evidence is recorded. Challan has already been filed. Hence, no ground to hand over the case to Crl. M. No.18593-M of 2010 -5- any other agency is made out.. Nothing said here-in-above will have any bearing on the facts of the case. Disposed of in the above terms. 7.3.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE