Criminal Revision No.1413 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.1413 of 2009 Date of Decision:25.8.2009 Sunder Singh @ Surinder Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the complainant. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed by Sunder Singh alias Surinder Singh as well as Gurmit Singh alias Kala against the order dated 19.5.2009 vide which they have been charged under Section 120-B read with Section 307 of IPC by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The brief facts are that ASI Gurvinder Singh made the statement before SI Jagdish Raj in the terms that after finishing my duty in the G.O. Mess I reached my house at about 8:30 P.M in the previous night. As usual, I left my house at about 5:30 A.M for morning walk. I also carried my service revolver with me. When I reached at B.L. Keshav new building and was about 50 sq. yards behind, two young persons came on the black colour motor-cycle, which was being driven by clean head person Criminal Revision No.1413 of 2009 -2- who was aged about 20 years, colour wheatish, normal height, clean shaven and he remained sitting on the motor cycle and the pillion rider aged about 30-35 years, a Sikh, cut beard, height about 5'7” or 8” alighted from the motor-cycle and took out revolver from his waist and fired upon me with intention to kill me, which hit on left side of my head and I fell down on the ground. Due to this, I sustained abrasion on the left shoulder and left eye. I also tried to take out revolver and made an attempt to fire upon them. They succeeded in running because the bus came in front. I can recognise them, if they are brought before me. I reached at my house in injured condition. After taking Gurbinder Singh and my wife, I reached in Guru Nanak Hospital, where I am under treatment. The reason for the occurrence is that my father Sarup Singh was murdered in 2003 in which a case was registered against Prabhjit Singh Sarpanch of Village Tarpaul at present Rajinder Nagar, G.T. Road, Amritsar in which he has been declared a proclaimed offender. He and Surinder Singh @ Sunder caste Mehra resident of 167, Rana Garden, who is my neighbour and Gurmit Singh alias Kala caste Ramgaria, who has returned from Dubai few days back, have been giving me threats to kill. I am sure that they are involved in the murderous attack perpetrated on me. I have handed over the clothes trenched with blood. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that as would be apparent from the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. no evidence of conspiracy has been collected against the petitioners. The unknown persons were never arrested. The complainant is a police official. Criminal Revision No.1413 of 2009 -3- The respondent has filed the challan just to harass the petitioners. There is no evidence collected against the petitioners except the statement of the complainant and his wife Gurmit Kaur. As per the FIR and the evidence of the injured witness, he was shot at by two unidentified young persons. As per the FIR and the statement of the injured, the petitioners are known to him for the last so many years and none of the petitioners was present at the spot. As such, the petitioners are not liable to be prosecuted under Section 120-B read with Section 307 of IPC as there is not even iota of evidence on the record to show as to when and where the accused had entered into a conspiracy with the assailants, who had fired at the complainant. As against this, the learned State Counsel canvassed at the bar that the petitioners have been charged and the trial Court is seized of the matter. It would be determined on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the prosecution as to whether or not the offence is established. Thus, no case is made out for quashing the charge. On giving a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, the view I am disposed to take is that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are unsustainable for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. There are specific allegations in the FIR that the petitioners prior to this occurrence had issued threats to the complainant to put an end to his life. Palpably, they are named in the FIR. The petitioners have been charge-sheeted. It is only the evidence to be led by the prosecution which would determine as to whether or not the complainant was attacked in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by the petitioners with the assailants. If the prosecution failed to substantiate the charge due to Criminal Revision No.1413 of 2009 -4- lack of evidence, the petitioners would be acquitted. Thus, to my mind, no case is made out for quashing the charge. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. August 25, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No