Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Ajit Singh & Others on 1 September, 2010
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
Criminal Appeal No.449-SBA of 2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Appeal No.449-SBA of 2000
Date of Decision: September 01, 2010
State of Punjab .......Appellant
Versus
Ajit Singh & others .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.JS Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
None for the respondents.
<><><>
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
1. The appeal in hand has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 12.5.1999 (for short as 'impugned judgment') delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nabha (for short as'trial Court'), whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges of the prosecution under Section 353, 332, 148, 149, 308, 436 IPC in FIR No.80 dated 30.10.1991 registered at Police Station Bhadson by giving them the benefit of doubt.
2. The facts of the prosecution case, as summed up in the judgment of the learned trial Court are "that on 12.10.1991 BDO Nabha produced an order of D.S.P. Nabha in which the D.S.P. Nabha Criminal Appeal No.449-SBA of 2000 2 has directed for police help to B.D.P.O. (Complainant) Nabha who was to recover the arrears of the rent. On 12.10.91 BDPO Nabha along with Panchayat Officer Ram Chand, Gurnam Singh, Panchayat Secretary (receiver), Dilbagh Singh Secretary Dandrala Khrod and Jita Singh Sarpanch of Village Nanowal were going to Village Nanowal in Gypsy bearing No.PB-11B 1200. When the Gypsy reached on the outer Kacha Phirni leading to Shamlat land, the police party was still at a distance behind the vehicle of the BDO/Complainant, near the culvert some people of Village Nanowal were standing who stopped the vehicle of BDO and declared that they would teach a lesson to complainant/BDO for making recoveries. The injuries were caused to complainant who was removed to Civil Hospital Nabha by his driver and Mohinder Singh son of Gurnam Singh, the police party also reached at the spot. The request was made to the medical officer to seek the information whether the complainant/BDO was fit to make statement and on 13.10.91 S.I. Sher Jang Bhahdur recorded the statement of BDO/complainant. In his statement the complainant alleged that he is appointed as BDO Nabha and there was a dispute of 650 Bighas of Shamlat land which was under illegal possession of Chain Singh son of Hardeep Singh etc. BDO Nabha has imposed rent in the capacity of Assistant Collector 1st Grade and the accused have obtained a stay order from the Hon'ble High Court. Subsequently the stay was vacated in favour of Gram Panchayat and an amount of Rs.19,48,375/- was to be recorded by cutting the paddy crops of the Criminal Appeal No.449-SBA of 2000 3 accused. In order to do so on 12.10.1991 at about 11.30 A.M. the complainant along-with Ram Chand, Panchayat Officer Nabha, Gurnam Singh, Panchayat Secretary, Dilbagh Singh Sewadar, Halqa Patwari Nanowal, Dhanwant Singh Secretary Dandrala Khroad, Jit Singh Sarpanch of Village Nanowal (assistant reciver) were going to Village Nanowal in Gypsy bearing registration No.PB-11B-1200 driver by Madan Lal driver. They have also requisition police help from P.S. Bhadson when they reached outer Phirni of Village leading to Sham Lat, Ajit Singh, Chain Singh, Surain Singh, Kartar Singh, Bagicha Singh, Joginder Singh, Jaswant Singh, Harbans Singh, Baldev Singh, Surinder Singh, Bohar Singh, Nishan Singh, Wirsa Singh, Mohinder Kaur, Kirpal Kaur, Manjit Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur, were standing there who stopped his vehicle, Ajit Singh Lambardar raised a Lalkara to the effect that BDO be taught a lesson for making recoveries and removing paddy. Chain Singh gave fist blows to the complainant, when he was sitting in his vehicle and Ajit Singh caught hold of his long hairs and pulled him from the vehicle. They abused him and Chain Singh gave blows on his testicles and the other accused gave fists blows and Dang blows when he was lying on the ground. He fell unconscious. Jita Singh Sarpanch and other employees raised hue and cry. Mohinder Kaur, Kirpal Kaur, Manjit Singh and Jaswant Kaur accused put the paddy on fire. All the accused ran away from the spot. At that time Hardial Singh, Punch, Kikar Singh and Mohinder Singh were present at the spot. The police also reached. The Criminal Appeal No.449-SBA of 2000 4 complainant was removed to Civil Hospital Nabha by Mohinder Singh and driver Madan Lal."
3. After registration of the FIR, the accused were arrested, final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented and on its basis, the accused were charge-sheeted under Section 353, 332, 148 and 435 IPC read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 12 witnesses, namely, Mohinder Singh son of Waryam Singh as PW1; Madan Lal as PW2; Dhanwant Singh, Panchayat Secretary, as PW3; Hukam Chand, Patwari, as PW4; Dr. K C Garg as PW5; BDPO, complainant, as PW6; H.C. Nardosh Kaur as PW7; Inspector Basakha Singh as PW8; H.C. Raja Ram as PW9; ASI Nirvir Singh as PW10; DSP Anant Ram as PW11 and Shamsher Jang Bhahdur as PW12.
5. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them. The accused denied the same and pleaded innocence.
6. In defence, the accused examined Mohinder as DW1 who had remained Sarpanch of Village Nanowal for 5 years. He deposed that no occurrence took place in his Village between BDPO, complainant and the accused. He deposed that 7 years ago, the Police came along with C.R.P.F. and arrested 7 male and 4 female as accused from their houses. At that time, BDPO was not present. He further Criminal Appeal No.449-SBA of 2000 5 deposed that the Police has arrested Ajit Singh, Bagicha Singh, Kartar Singh, Chain Singh, Sarain Singh and Joginder Singh. He deposed that thereafter they came to know that the paddy is being harvested by government officials. After 2/3 days the police arrested the other accused. He also deposed that he was not connected with any party faction in the village and being a Sarpanch of the village he had equal relations with every one. He deposed that village Sham Lat land is about 5 to 6 killas from the Village Abadi. He deposed that said Sham Lat has been allotted to the accused.
7. The accused further examined Balbir Singh as DW2; Sukhdarshan Singh as DW3 and Jagat Singh as DW5.
8. The learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced before it by the parties, held that keeping in view the totality of circumstances, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond doubt and as such by giving the benefit of doubt, the accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them, vide impugned judgment dated 12.5.1999.
9. Aggrieved from the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal for setting aside the same.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has argued that the case of the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the statement of the complainant which is duly supported by other prosecution witness Mohinder Singh who identified the accused present in the Court.
11. It is further contended that the complainant, who is a public Criminal Appeal No.449-SBA of 2000 6 servant, received injuries when he had gone to effect the recovery of arrears of rent from the accused while discharging his official duties.
12. It is further argued that the complainant was attacked and injuries were caused on his person, which are duly reflected in the MLR issued by Dr.KC Garg, PW5. He has further argued that Mohinder Kaur, Kirpal Kaur, Manjit Singh and Jaswant Kaur accused set the paddy on fire in the presence of Hardial Singh Panch, Kikar Singh, and Mohinder Singh. He has further submitted that Madan Lal, PW2, driver of BDPO, has categorically stated that he identified the accused but did not know their names. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has assailed the acquittal of the accused on the ground that the complainant failed to identify and give the names of the accused in his cross-examination, which is not believable as the occurrence took place in a village where the injured had not visited previously. He has lastly submitted that it is settled law that it is quality and not the quantity of evidence which matters and the official witnesses are as good as independent witnesses as they had no intention to falsely implicate the accused-respondents. Mohinder Singh, who is an independent witness, has supported the case of the prosecution. The complainant being a public servant was assaulted by the accused, while discharging his official duties, which is a serious offence.
13. The accused-respondents examined Mohinder as DW1, Ex- Sarpanch of village Nanowal. He has stated that no occurrence as alleged by the prosecution took place between BDPO, complainant and the accused. The accused further examined Kulbir Singh, DW2, who has stated that no occurrence with any Officer took place. However, he has stated that certain people were arrested by the police 7/8 years ago. He has further stated that Criminal Appeal No.449-SBA of 2000 7 paddy was not harvested and was not put on fire.
14. I have heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the records of the case.
15. The complainant when examined, in his cross-examination, has failed to identify and give the names of the accused-respondents. He was specifically called upon to identify Nishan Singh and Jaswant Singh, but failed to do so. From the perusal of the statement of the complainant in his cross-examination, it appears that he has made considerable improvement in his earlier version. The complainant failed to give the name of the receiver appointed. The learned trial Court has referred to the cross-examination of the complainant wherein he has specifically deposed that it was the police personnel who rescued him from the hands of the accused. The learned trial Court has observed that this statement was contrary to the first statement made by the complainant on the basis of which the present FIR was registered, therefore, the learned trial Court concluded that different version rendered by the complainant creates a doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the presence of police on the spot at the time of occurrence.
16. The case of the prosecution stands demolished by the testimony of Dhanwant Singh, PW3 who is one of the Panchayat Secretary and accompanied the complainant on the day of occurrence. The ocular version rendered by the complainant and the medical evidence are not consistent. As per the statement of the complainant, he was given dang blows on his head, leg and many other parts of the body, but MLR and the testimony of Dr.KC Garg goes to establish that the complainant suffered only two injuries. These injuries are not reflected in the MLR prepared by Dr.KC Garg.
Criminal Appeal No.449-SBA of 2000 8
17. As per the statement of the complainant, he became unconscious after receiving the injuries, whereas as per the cross- examination of Dr.KC Garg, the patient was in his senses during the course of his examination. PW3-Dhanwant Singh, who is the Secretary of the same department, and despite the complainant being his superior Officer did not support the case of the prosecution. Even Madan Lal, PW2, driver of the complainant, has stated that paddy was not put on fire. The prosecution has also failed to produce the tins containing kerosene oil in the Court. No independent witness was examined. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that the judgment is vitiated or the findings arrived at by ignoring evidence on record or by mis-reading of evidence. He has failed to point out that the judgment of the trial Court suffers from any perversity. The learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record has taken a possible view in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further, the learned counsel has not been able to show that the view taken by the learned trial Court is not a possible view.
18. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned trial Court is maintained.
19. Since the main appeal is decided, misc. application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
( JITENDRA CHAUHAN )
September 01, 2010 JUDGE
atul/SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No