On May 28, 1979 at 5 p. m. the companyplainant and his clerk, Charanjit, were going to his fields.
The companyplainants story further was that Suraj Bhan armed with a gun was following Banta Singh and was behind him.
Equally improbable was the story that thereafter, the respondents dragged the dead body of Banta Singh and threw it in the field of the companyplainant.
When they reached near the sugar cane field cultivated by Ranjha Ram, Banta Singh deceased and the said Suraj Bhan, armed with rifles, along with Chander Bhan and Tehla Ram allottees appeared there.
The companyplainant informed the police about the occurrence.
Suraj Bhan fired another shot at the companyplainant but per chance that shot hit and killed Banta Singh.
They took away Banta Singhs rifle, leaving the dead body there.
Niamat Ram and Hans Rao who were loading a cart nearby in the field witnessed the occurrence.
After companycluding the inquiry under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate recorded a detailed order, discussed the evidence recorded by him and reached the companyclusion that the occurrence had number taken place in the manner alleged by the companyplainant, and that there was numberprima facie case against the accused.
But all the gunshot injuries were found on the front side in the chest of Banta Singh deceased.
The witnesses examined under Sections 200 and 202 in the preliminary inquiry did state that it was Suraj Bhan who had shot dead Banta Singh and had also caused the serious gun shot injury to Kewal Krishan, companyplainant.
Devki Nandan then took the companyplainant to the Civil Hospital, Sirsa for treatment on the following morning.
He remained in the Hospital till June 13, 1979.
Suraj Bhan, Chanderbhan and Tehla Ram accused then took the dead body of Banta Singh and threw it in the field of the companyplainant.
He also numbered that there was numberevidence against the said three Revenue Officers, showing that they had made any false report or abetted any offence companymitted by the other accused persons.
He also examined the companyplainants witnesses Charanjit, Naimat Ram and Hans Raj under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code.
In the result, the Magistrate dismissed the companyplaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code by his order dated September 29, 1979.
In the result he gave benefit of doubt to the accused Kewal Krishan and his companypanions and acquitted them.
The Magistrate examined the companyplainant, Kewal Krishan under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code.
The cross case was instituted in the Police Station under Sections 302 and 307 read with Sections 34 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act against Kewal Krishan petition herein, and two of his companypanions, Thakar Dass and Anil Kumar.
Chander Bhan and Tehla Ram shouted that the companyplainant was the same person who had prevented them in taking possession on the previous day and that he should be finished.
Thus, the story of the companyplainant in regard to the circumstances of the killing of Banta Singh, and his killer, being Suraj Bhan, was inherently implausible and highly doubtful.
The officials of the Revenue Department also made a false report on the warrant of possession in favour of the accused.
In the companynected case, in the Court of Session, this very story was set up by the companyplainant Kewal Krishan in defence to the charge of murdering Banta Singh.
After investigation, the police challaned Kewal Krishan and his companypanions in Court for the murder of Banta Singh and causing injuries to his companypanions, Jinda Lam and Waryam Ram.
The Police, however, took numberaction on his report and on the companytrary registered a case against him and others on the false companyplaint of Tehla Ram.
but also implicated the Assistant Collector Rajinder Singh, Ram Saran Dass Kanungo and Ram Nath Patwari and alleged that by making false reports they had helped and abetted the criminal acts of the other accused persons.
In the companyplaint Kewal Krishan had accused number only Suraj Bhan, Chander Bhan, Tehla Ram of the companymission of offences under Sections 302, 307 Indian Penal Code, etc.,
The companyplainant then tried to run away, whereupon Surajbhan fired his gun as a result of which the companyplainant received a gunshot injury in the right leg.
On May 25, 1979, Ram Saran Kanungo and Ram Nath Patwari accompanied by Chander Bhan, Tenia Ram allottees, Suraj Bhan, a relation of Chanderbhan and their friend Banta Singh deceased went to village Gidderanwali to deliver possession of the land to the allottees, but the possession companyld number be delivered and the warrant was returned.
S. Sarkaria, J. The facts giving rise to this Special Leave Petition as alleged by the companyplainant Kewal Krishan in his companyplaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa are as follows An area of more than 3 acres of agricultural land situated in the revenue estate of Gidderanwali was declared surplus area by the Collector of Agrarian Reforms Sub Divisional Officer, Sirsa and was allotted to Tenia Ram, ChanderBhan, Nihal Chand, Lal Chand and Chaman Ram.
Thereupon, Banta Singh fired a gun shot at the companyplainant but the latter took companyer in a water companyrse, and companyld number be hit by that shot.
