Criminal Appeal No.236-SBA of 1998 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Criminal Appeal No.236-SBA of 1998
Date of Decision:09.01.2009
State of Punjab
.....Appellant
Vs.
Jarnail Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. Abhishek Chautala, AAG, Punjab for the appellant.
Mr. Madan Lal Saini, Advocate for the respondents.
****
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
The leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide order dated
18.3.1998. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.12.1994
passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda
whereby he acquitted Jarnail Singh, Kulwant Rai and Kanwal Kumar Gupta
accused by accepting the appeal preferred against the judgment/ order of
sentence dated 16.12.1991 vide which these accused were convicted and
sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each
and in default of the same, the defaulter to undergo simple imprisonment for
15 days under Section 186 of IPC.
The facts in brief of the prosecution case are that on 30.3.1984
in the area of Mansa, the aforesaid accused had wrongly restrained Mr. D.S.
Bains, the then S.D.M. Mansa who was discharging his public function and
Criminal Appeal No.236-SBA of 1998 -2-
also criminally intimidated him by saying that the electricity will not be
restored till bills are not paid, when actually the bills stood already paid. On
the basis of the report lodged by Mr. D.S. Bains, S.D.M., the case was
registered against the accused. On completion of investigation, the charge-
sheet was laid in the Court of the learned Illaqa Magistrate. The accused
were charge-sheeted under Sections 341/186/353 of IPC to which they did
not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused,
the prosecution examined Baljit Singh PW1 and Mr. D.S. Bains PW2 and
closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the
accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the
prosecution evidence against them and pleaded false implication. In
defence, they examined Mukhtiar Singh, JE DW1, Jatinder Kumar DW2.
This apart, Jarnail Singh accused also entered the witness box as DW3.
After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, learned
defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial
Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling
aggrieved with their conviction/ sentence, they went up in appeal which was
accepted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. The
State of Punjab being dissatisfied therewith have preferred this appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides
perusing the record as well as the findings returned by both the Courts
below with due care and circumspection.
Mr. Abhishek Chautala, learned Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab on behalf of the appellant strenuously urged that Mr. D.S. Bains was
not inimically disposed towards the accused persons and that being so, he
did not have any motive to implicate them falsely. The evidence tendered
Criminal Appeal No.236-SBA of 1998 -3-
by Baljit Singh Constable PW1 as well as Mr. D.S. Bains, PW2 being
consistent and credible ought to have been believed. The learned Lower
Appellate Court has gravely erred in acquitting the accused by holding that
the prosecution case became suspicious because of non-examining of the
driver of the Jeep of Mr. D.S.Bains. Had he been examined his evidence,
would have merely resulted in duplication on the record. The value of the
evidence is to be weighed. The number of the witnesses is not to be
counted. That being so, the impugned judgment is liable to be reversed.
To overcome these submissions, Mr. Madan Lal Saini,
Advocate representing the respondents agitated at the bar that the findings
of the learned Appellate Court below in no manner can be faulted with
being based on sound reasoning. This contention merits acceptance.
Towards the end of his cross-examination, the complainant Mr. D.S. Bains,
PW2 has regretted his inability to disclose the names of the accused persons
as well as their identity. This evidence in isolation of other evidence strikes
a death knell to the prosecution edifice. As surfaces in his further cross-
examination, the electric wires were not cut within his view. It is in his
examination-in-chief that when he was about to move out his Court in his
jeep, his jeep was ‘gheraoed” by the accused present in the Court and other
employees of the Electricity Board and that he was to go to attend the
emergency meeting in connection with the maintenance of law and order at
Bathinda and that due to this gheraon, he could not attend the meeting. It is
also in his evidence that they had disconnected the eletric supply of his
office as well as residence. It is in the cross-examination of Baljit Singh
PW1, who was deployed as Gunman at the material time with Mr. D.S.
Bains (sic.) that the driver and Joginder Singh, Peon were also present in the
Criminal Appeal No.236-SBA of 1998 -4-
Kothi (referring to the residence of Mr. D.S. Bains). The prosecution has
not examined the driver or Joginder Singh, Peon. The accused were not
named in the FIR. Owing to non-examination of the driver as well as the
aforesaid peon, the accused have been robbed off their valuable right to
cross-examine them. Furthermore, the Investigator has also been withheld.
One PW Ram Sarup, an official witness has been given up on the pretext of
his having been won over by the accused. It does not stand to the logic that
he would have succumbed to the pressure of the accused in any manner. All
the three accused being responsible officer of the Punjab State Electricity
Board in no manner could be expected to have resorted to restrain the then
S.D.M. Mr. D.S. Bains from attending the emergency meeting. The facts
and circumstances of the case are such that the identification of the accused
in the Court cannot be accepted for the reason that as alleged there were
large number of employees of the Board out of whom it was difficult to
identify the accused. This may be the reason for not naming the accused in
the FIR.
In view of the above discussion, it is found that the impugned
judgment does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Consequently,
this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
January 09, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? No