Criminal Misc. No. M-9531 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-9531 of 2009 Date of decision: October 05, 2009 Raj Pal .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. J. S. Bedi, Advocate for respondents No. 8 to 12. Rajesh Bindal J. The present petition has been filed in this court by the complainant side with the allegation that investigation in a double murder case by the State police was not fair. Briefly, the pleaded facts are that Hari Om son of Zile Singh lodged FIR No. 16 dated 15.1.2009 under Sections 148/149/302/120-B IPC and 25 of the Arms Act regarding the murder of Rajesh son of Zile Singh and Krishan son of Lakhmi on 15.1.2009 by Satbir @ Satte son of Devi Singh, Anil @ Cheeka son of Mahender Singh, Nirmala Devi wife of Satbir @ Satte, Nakul @ Nakku son of Devi Singh and Sehdev @ Sukhdev @ Tippal son of Arjun Singh. Nirmala Devi wife of Satbir @ Satte was a Sarpanch of the village. Both husband and wife have been arrayed as accused. The complainant approached this Court by filing the present petition on 31.3.2009 alleging that on account of undue influence of Inspector-Satpal Malik and ASI Rajbir Singh, the police was not investigating the case properly. They had only arrested Satbir @ Satte and Anil @ Cheeka on 19.1.2009. The other accused named in the FIR were not arrested. It is stated that the incident was witnessed by Satbir, Sanjit, Krishna wife of Krishan and Kavita wife of Raj Pal (petitioner) along with the complainant in the FIR, namely, Hari Criminal Misc. No. M-9531 of 2009 [2] Om. Still their testimony was being disbelieved. Further, it is mentioned that there was a strong motive with the accused party to commit murder as in December, 2002, Mahender Singh son of Devi Singh, real brother of Satbir @ Sattee was murdered in which the present complainant party was the accused. The trial court in that case had convicted Sant Kumar son of Mukhtiar Singh and Dharampal son of Lakhmi for committing the murder of Mahender Singh, though the other accused were acquitted. It is also mentioned that during the pendency of the trial pertaining to the murder of Mahender Singh, Nakul @ Nakku and Sehdev @ Sukhdev along with Manjit son of Arjun Singh and Virender @ Bander had caused fire arm injuries to Sanjit son of Zile Singh, Raj Pal-petitioner (real brother of deceased Krishan and cousin of deceased Rajesh in the incident in question) and they were challaned under Section 307 IPC. It was also mentioned in the petition that the police was trying to help the accused by not investigating the case properly and in fact, they are not likely to present challan within a period of specified 90 days so that even the arrested accused also get the concession of bail. It is under these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has approached this court seeking its indulgence to transfer the investigation of the case to some independent agency. At present, the stage of the case is that after presentation of challan even the charges have also been framed, but real accused have not been challaned and charge-sheeted. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the mere fact that the FIR in question was got recorded within two hours of the incident, there are no chances of any concoction or false allegations to implicate any person who was not involved in the incident as there was no time for any consultation process amongst the aggrieved family, two of their members having been murdered in day light in the presence of number of witnesses by the accused specifically named in the FIR. Not only this, even the report of the FIR was also sent to the Illaqa Magistrate at 10.30 P.M. He further referred to the application filed by the police seeking police remand of Satbir @ Satte and Anil @ Cheeka, wherein it was stated that after their arrest on 19.1.2009, on interrogation Satbir @ Satte made a disclosure statement on 20.1.2009 that he along with his brother Nakul @ Nakku, Anil @ Cheeka son of Mahender Singh and Sehdev @ Sukhdev son of Arjun Singh had committed the murder of Rajesh son of Zile Singh and while they were running back in the car, on the way Krishan also met and he was also murdered. Still all the accused were not arrested. At the instance of Satbir @ Satte and Anil @ Cheeka, one gun .12 bore and a container of four cartridges, one revolver of .32 bore with 11 live catridges (both licensed) Criminal Misc. No. M-9531 of 2009 [3] belonging to Satbir @ Satte were recovered and taken into possession. Before filing of the petition in this Court, no other accused was arrested and the investigation proceeded at snail snake. The submission is that even the two accused, who were initially arrested, were released on bail by the court on account of the fact that the prosecution failed to file challan against them within the stipulated period of 90 days. As filing of the petition put the prosecution and the investigating agencies in a dilemma, they arrested one Amit Yadav son of Raghbir Singh Yadav. In the application for his police remand, it was stated that Amit Yadav in the aforesaid case was also arrested on 16.4.2009, whereas the fact remains that he was not named in the FIR. The police ultimately presented challan against Sunil @ Leela, Satbir @ Satte, Sunder @ Kala Amit Yadav and Rajesh. Rajesh was never arrested and he is proclaimed offender. In the challan, which was presented on 10.7.2009, it was mentioned that during investigation Nirmala Devi wife of Satbir @ Satte, Nakul @ Nakku son of Devi Singh and Sehdev @ Sukhdev son of Arjun Singh, who were named in the FIR, were found to be innocent and were also not arrested. Even Anil @ Cheeka son of Mahender Singh was also found to be innocent and application for his discharge had been submitted. He further submitted that in fact the investigating agency had given a complete twist to the investigation by not arresting the real accused. The investigation was diverted towards hardened criminal who, after his arrest in another case, was made to confess about the present case as well. Otherwise, he had no link and motive at all for committing the double murder. The conduct can very well be appreciated from the fact that in a double murder case, only two of the accused named in the FIR were arrested and that too four days after the registration of the FIR. No other accused was arrested. Even the accused so arrested were also released on bail on account of non-presentation of challan within 90 days. In the statements of all the eye-witnesses recorded by the police, there was no discrepancy at all as the facts stated in the complaint initially were fully corroborated. There was strong motive for the commission of the offence with the accused party named in the FIR. In fact, the manner in which the investigation has been carried out and challan presented, the same will result in acquittal of the accused as the story sought to be projected by the prosecution may not be corroborated during trial as none of the eye-witnesses is privity to that which may even result in acquittal of the other accused. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies, the prayer is that the case should be got further investigated from some independent agency so that truth Criminal Misc. No. M-9531 of 2009 [4] comes out and real culprits are booked. He further submitted that it was only after the filing of present petition that Amit Yadav was arrested. Recovery of weapons and cartridges shown from him thereafter may be on account of some plantation made to involve him in the offence as he was already a gangster. It was the investigation in a typical style where after arresting a gangster, the police either tries to close all the untraced cases by getting the same confessed from him or to take out a real accused, he is made to confess about some offence which he had not committed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that though all the eye-witnesses had corroborated the version recorded in the FIR, however, the same was not found to be correct on investigation. Only Satbir @ Satte was found to be involved in the crime. She further submitted that though the FIR under Section 307 IPC etc. was registered at the instance of Raj Pal, the present petitioner, however, all the accused in the same were acquitted by the learned court on 14.2.2006. Amit Yadav and Sunil were arrested on 28.3.2009 in another case, where in their confessional statements, they admitted to have committed the murder of Rajesh and Krishan. She further submitted that some arms and ammunitions were recovered at the instance of Satbir @ Satte. No recovery was made from Anil. However, some of the arms and ammunitions were recovered at the instance of Amit Yadav after his arrest. Though proper investigation has been conducted, however, still Dalbir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter) Rohtak, in his reply had stated that the official respondents do not have any objection to the entrustment of the investigation to any independent agency including the Central Bureau of Investigation. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents-accused submitted that in fact Sunder had confessed to the murder at the behest of Satbir @ Satte. He further submitted that in fact the entire dispute between the parties regarding earlier murder had been settled. This is evident from the acquittal of the accused in the FIR registered against some of the accused in the present FIR at the instance of the petitioner. It was on account of a compromise. Another twist is sought to be given to the story with the allegation that in FIR No. 232 dated 25.9.2003, under Sections 302/34 and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Sampla, District Rohtak, Satbir was one of the eye-witness in which two brothers of Sunder @ Kala were accused and Satbir had supported the prosecution version. As the prosecution in that case was being followed by Krishan, deceased in the present FIR, there was a motive with Sunder to have Criminal Misc. No. M-9531 of 2009 [5] committed the murder in the present case as well at the instance of Satbir @ Satte. However, at the very out set, in my opinion, this was a double edge weapon used by the investigating agencies and the accused. Once Satbir @ Sattee was a prosecution witness in a case in which two brothers of Sunder were the accused, prima facie there was no question of his working at the instance of Satbir @ Satte. Even otherwise, no material was referred to substantiate the plea that Krishan was following the aforesaid prosecution, he being not at all interested party in the offence. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. From the facts on record, as mentioned above in the preceding paragraphs, it is evident that version of the eye-witnesses, who may be relatives of the deceased in double murder case, has been totally side tracked and a new story is sought to be projected by the investigating agency. The defence, as projected by the accused party regarding the settlement of the dispute between the parties regarding the earlier murder of the member of the accused party by the complainant party having been settled also does not sound to reason. It is also a fact that the FIR in the present case was registered merely after two hours of the incident, meaning thereby there was quite less scope of concoction of story. The issue regarding motive, there being earlier rivalry between the parties, was required to be probed in depth as there was no apparent motive with Amit Yadav, a gangster, to commit the double murder. Non-presentation of challan even against arrested accused within 90 days of their arrest is doubtful. Another direction given to the story by bringing Sunder is also quite doubtful considering the fact that Satbir @ Satte was one of the eye-witness where two brothers of Sunder were prosecuted in a case of murder. The stand of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) also being that they had no objection in case the investigation of the case is entrusted to any other independent agency including the Central Bureau of Investigation, in my opinion, it is a fit case where further investigation is required in the double murder case so that loose ends in the story of the prosecution are plugged and real accused are brought to book. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation for further investigation. As the challan in the present case has already been presented, the Central Bureau of Investigation would present its investigation report with the concerned court after completion of the investigation, which may be done expeditiously. State Police to assist Central Breau of Investigation in conducting investigation of the case. Criminal Misc. No. M-9531 of 2009 [6] The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge October 05, 2009 mk