IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICATION)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.________ OF 2016
(FROM THE FINAL JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED __________ PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF __________ AT __________ IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ________ 0F______)
IN THE MATTER OF:
lodged in Model Jail, Chandigarh ………………. PETITIONER/ORIGINAL ACCUSED
Union Territory of _______ through Home Secretary, Secretariat, ________………. RESPONDENT
S Singh S/o __________ R/o __________ ………… PROFORMA RESPONDENT/ ORIGINAL ACCUSED.
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE
136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
And his Companion Justices of
The Supreme Court of India
The humble petition of the
Above named petitioner
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
That the present Special leave Petition (Criminal) is filed against order dated 26.11.2015 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 305-DB of 2013, titled “Subeg Singh & Anr, versus The State Union Territory of Chandigarh” whereby the Hon’ble Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
That the present petition raises an important question of law for consideration before this Hon’ble Court. ________________
On the night intervening 11/12.2.2013 murder of Shri Bachna Ram, who was a cook and domestic servant of Shri Devinder Singh Brar, resident of house No. 53, Sector 28-A Chandigarh, was committed in the kitchen of his house when Shri Devinder Singh Brar and his sister Smt. Gurmail Kaur were in Aurngabad. The F.LR. was registered on the statement of Capt Jagat Pal Singh PW-11 who resides in the neighborhood of house No. 53. The offence came into light when Smt. Babita the sweeper of House No. 53 informed Capt. Jagat Pal Singh PW-11 that on 11.2.2013 and again on 13.2.2013. Smt. Babita informed Capt Jagat Pal Singh PW-11. On the information given by Catpain Jagat pal Singh, Puran Chand aforesaid recorded D.D.R. No. 46 dated 13.2.2013 in the Rojnamcha of the PW-11 S.1 police-Station East, Chandigarh and formed a Police party and the came to House No. 53, The investigation of this case remained pending with S.I. Puran Chand up 8.3.2013 The to police remained unsuccessful in tracing out the crime till 8.4.2013. On that day, Balwan Singh S.L. PW-24 of the CIA staff, took over the investigation of this case. He along with members of the police party including S.1. Partap Sing PW-23 visited House No. 53. Sector 28-A Chandigarh where Mr. Devinder Singh Brar PW-12 was present. In his presence, appellant Gurdev Singh was interrogated and he made certain disclosures after which the further story unfolded. After completion of the investigation the accused were challaned on the charges under Section 120-B, 392/120-B, 302/34, 302/114, 1P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them and claimed trial. The Court of Sh. B.S.Bedi, Session Judge, Chandigarh convicted the accused U/s. 120-B, 302/34 and in alternative 302/114 IPC
That the copy of the Trial Court judgment passed by Sessions Judge Chandigarh convicting and sentencing the petitioner in Sessions Case No.15 of 2013 U/s 120-B, 302/34 and in alternative 302/114 IPC is Annexure P-1 5.
- Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the Petitioner approaches this Hon’ble Court by way of Special Leave Petition on the following amongst other grounds:
- Because the judgment and order dated 26.11 2015passed by the Hon’ble High Courtwhich dismissed the appeal of the appellant is contrary to law and facts and hence the same is liable to set aside both on the point of law and equity.
- Because the prosecution only produced the partisan or the interested persons as witnesses in order to prove the commission of crime by the petitioner. This fact doubts the truthfulness of the case of prosecution.
- Because the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version D. Because the prosecution has miserable failed to prove its case beyond doubt against the petitioner.
- Because the witnesses have not deposed correctly and there is discrepancy in the depositions of witnesses and the conviction of the petitioner is bad.
- Because the Hon’ble Court ignored the fact to be considered in the case was as to whether the evidence of PW-5 Gurpartap Singh, the approver, was reliable and if so whether there was corroboration to his evidence on material particulars so as to warrant conviction It is high-lighted that it was a case of no evidence from the side of the prosecution and, therefore, the evidence of the approver and other circumstances, corroborated by his statement cannot be the base of conviction of the appellant.
- Because Gurpartap Singh PW-5 lost his status as an approver when he appeared before the learned Committing Magistrate and his statement was recorded as PW-1 on 11.9.1995. The relevant portion of the same is as follows: “Before 7.4.2012 1 had no conversation with anybody. On 74.2012 myself, accused Subeg Singh and accused Nand Singh were coming from Rajpura to Chandigarh on a Motorcycle. I had come to Chandigarh on that date for the first time When we crossed Zirakpur, we were apprehended on the first Chowk by the Chandigarh Police. From there we were apprehended and implicated in this case. I do not know where Sector 28 is. I was threatened by the Police that I should give a statement in favour of the Polcie otherwise I would be involved in a TADA case and should suffer imprisonment for whole of the life In the Jail also, the police people used to visit me and threaten and intimidate me. I made statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on account of fear of the police, I have nothing more to say about this Case”
- Because the above statement will show that the tender of pardon given t to Gurpartap Singh by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on 1.5.2012 was no, more available and he lost the status of an approver. It is stated here that the Learned Committing Magistrate was entirely wrong in permitting the cross-examination of Gurpartap Singh by the prosecution by declaring him hostile. This could not have been done for the simple reason that he did not attain the status of a witness This being so, all the proceedings after 11.9.2012 with regard to the examination of Gurpartap Singh as a witness by the Leamed committing Magistrate or by the Learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh stood vitiated being totally illegal. It is submitted that from the date 11.5.2012 when Gurpartap Singh made the above statement, he is to be taken as an accused and not an approver, he had made altogether different statement from the one alleged to have been made after alleged acceptance of tender of pardon.
That the Petitioner has not filed any other Special Leave Petition against the Impugned Order dated 26.09 2002 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
In the premises the Petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
Grant special leave to appeal to the petitioner against judgment and order dated 26.11.2015 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 305-DB of 2013, titled “Subeg Singh & Ant., versus The State Union Territory of Chandigarh”
pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case favour of the Petitioner.
DRAWN NO. _________
DRAWN AND FILED BY
ADVOCATE OF THE PETITIONER