IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 784-DBA of 1997
Date of Decision: July 15, 2008
State of Punjab
...Appellant
Versus
Hari Singh and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND.
Present : Mr. D.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab,
for the appellant.
Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate,
for the respondents.
S.D. Anand, J.
Respondents – accused Hari Singh, Nima Singh and
Kaur Singh sons of Puran Singh are real brothers inter se; while
respondents – accused Bhagwan Singh and Roop Singh sons of
Wariam Singh are also real brothers of each other. Out of the five
respondents – accused, Hari Singh and Bhagwan Singh are dead. It
has been brought to our notice today that injured Gurdev Singh is
also dead.
Injured Sukhdev Singh and respondents – accused were
litigating proceedings for partition of a joint khata in the Revenue
Crl. Appeal No. 784-DBA of 1997 2
Court. On the relevant date, at about 8 p.m. the respondents (out of
whom Hari Singh, Kaur Singh and Bhawan Singh were carrying a
gandasa each; while the remaining were carrying a Soti) appeared
on the scene and belaboured Gurdev Singh who fell down upon the
ground. The occurrence was witnessed by PW6 – Sukhdev Singh,
PW3 – Bhajan Singh and PW2 – Gurdev Singh.
The learned Trial Judge, on appraisal of the evidence on
record, recorded the following finding of fact:-
“13. It is in these circumstances that not only it can be
said that the statements of the alleged eye witnesses
Bhajan Singh and Sukhdev Singh P.Ws. are
contradictory, with regard to the place of occurrence, to
the statement of injured complainant Gurdev Singh P.W.
but also it further causes serious doubts about the
statements of Bhajan Singh and Sukhdev Singh P.Ws.
that they could have seen the occurrence or part thereof
from the Chobara when they were present, because, in
case the occurrence took place inside the residential
room over which the Chobara is situated, they could not
have seen the same. It is not the case of Gurdev Singh
that, during the occurrence, he was brought out from the
room into the Court-yard. It is doubtful if Bhajan Singh or
Sukhdev Singh saw occurrence. At least, with regard to
Sukhdev Singh P.W., it can be said that his name is not
at all mentioned in the statement Ex.PC made by Gurdev
Crl. Appeal No. 784-DBA of 1997 3Singh, to the investigating officer and which statement
has become the F.I.R. in this case.
14. ………… Accordingly, both the father (Gurdev Singh
P.W.) and the son (Bhajan Singh P.W.) are contradictory
about the source from which they had obtained the
electric connection, but they are also discrepant,
alongwith Sukhdev Singh P.W. regarding the place where
the electric bulbs were available for that light. It the light
was only in the inner room and the occurrence took place
in the Court-yard they it may have been difficult to identify
the assailants by any person, who had allegedly seen the
occurrence taking place in the Court-yard. It there was
light in the Court-yard only and not in the room then the
assailants may not have identified by a person who might
have seen the occurrence inside the room…
15. With these circumstances, the inordinate delay in
lodging of the F.I.R. becomes a matter which cannot be
ignored. According to Bhajan Singh and Sukhdev Singh
P.Ws. they had accompanied the injured to the Civil
Hospital at Malerkotla and they remained present with
him. ….. The doctor has also deposed that he talked with
the injured and made a note in the bed head ticket to the
effect that the injured had stated that he received the
injuries in a fight with someone. However, the statement
of the injured was not recorded at that time. The
explanation put-forth by Bhajan Singh P.W. is that no
Crl. Appeal No. 784-DBA of 1997 4doubt, before coming to the Civil Hospital, Malerkotla,
they had gone to the police station at Amargarh yet the
Officer Incharge at that police station told him that first
the medico legal report should be obtained and then the
report would be recorded. Apparently, there is none to
support this fact and it appears to be a made up
version……..Even when the Doctor declared at 6.30 p.m.
on 25.12.1991 that Gurdev Singh was unfit to make a
statement because he was under the effect of seddation,
then also Bhajan Singh or Sukhdev Singh could have
made a statement about the occurrence to the
Investigating Officer. They did not make any such
statement and it was only in 26.12.1991 that when the
doctor opined at 3.30 p.m. that Gurdev Singh was fit to
make a statement, vide endorsement with Ex.D/1 that
thereafter the statement Ex.PC of Gurdev Singh was
recorded on 26.12.1991 by 5.00 p.m. The delay in
lodging of the F.I.R. is thus a circumstance which goes
against the prosecution and the plea taken by the
accused is plausible that till 26.12.1991 the witnesses
were busy in making up a story.”
We have satisfied ourselves that the finding recorded by
the learned Trial Judge proceeds on factually correct premise. We
also do not find anything perverse in the manner of appreciation of
evidence. The Court had, in any case taken a possible view in the
matter. In view of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in
Crl. Appeal No. 784-DBA of 1997 5
Ramesh Babulal vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant
Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal vs.
State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 2158, we are not inclined to interfere
in the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court.
The appeal against Hari Singh and Bhagwan Singh shall
stand dismissed as abated; while the appeal against Kaur Singh,
Nima Singh and Roop Singh shall stand dismissed on merits of the
matter.
( S.D. Anand )
Judge
July 15, 2008 ( Adarsh Kumar Goel )
vkd Judge
Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ; Yes/No