Navjot Sidhu’s petition dismissed

Justice Kumar further asked the "Sessions Judge dealing with the matter to conclude the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible" to avoid prejudice to either of the parties.

The Patiala Sessions Judge, on August 8, 1995, had dismissed the application filed by the state through the public prosecutor for permission to withdraw the prosecution against Sidhu and co-accused Rupinder Singh Sandhu.

The duo were booked by the Punjab police on December 27, 1988 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and common intention after Gurnam Singh succumbed to his injuries.

The deceased was allegedly attacked by Sidhu and the co-accused in Bazaar Sheranwala Gate in Patiala after he asked them to move aside the car they were driving as it was blocking the passage.

The complainant Jaswin-der Singh of village Mandi had alleged tah Sidhu punched and kicked his uncle Gurnam Singh on the "temporal region", besides other body parts, after dragging him out of their car.

The co-accused, Jaswinder Singh had further alleged, also attacked Gurnam Singh while he descended from the vehicle. The duo, he had stated, fled along with the ignition key after an alarm was raised. Gurnam Singh, who was taken to the Rajindra Hospital in a rickshaw, was later declared dead, he had added.

Today, Justice Kumar observed: "The grounds of the application (for the withdrawal of the prosecution), seen in the light of the facts are for extraneous consideration and are nothing but plagiarism of the dictum of the state, without proper application of mind".

He further observed: "I have no hesitation to hold and predicate the conclusion the learned sessions judge, arrived at in the impugned judgment. Consequently, both these revision petitions are dismissed. The interim order shall stand vacated".

In his detailed order, Justice Kumar added: "Curio are the cases where the complainant being dissatisfied by the approach and conduct of investigating and prosecution agencies, sets the judicial process into motion by filing a criminal complaint before the court of competent jurisdiction, even in relation to serious offences."

"Thereafter, the state also files the police report in the court. The cases are consolidated. Charges are framed. The evidence of the prosecution commences in the state case itself. Suddenly, the learned public prosecutor decides to withdraw the prosecution against one accused and thereafter against both the accused on the basis of the decision taken in the court itself. The accused are sought to be protected by invoking the powers vested in the concerned authority under Section 321 of the Code."

"In these circumstances, such protection to an accused which exposes the complainant to the rigour of discharging the onerous burden of proof in the murder trial at his own expenses and means, to say the least, cannot be said to be in the interest of administration of justice".

He further added: "Where the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence discernibly presume every accused innocent, till proved guilty, it is also recognised with tenacity, the protection to a complainant to have a fair chance to prove his case".