Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 March, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.50-SB of 2003
Date of decision: 16th March, 2011
Surjit Singh
... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Vinod Khunger, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the State.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present appeal has been filed by Surjit Singh son of Sukha Singh. He was tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ferozepur in a case arising out of FIR No.22 dated 26.03.1996 registered at Police Station City Jalalabad under Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC. Kashmiro Bai, mother of appellant-Surjit Singh, who was tried as a co-accused, died during the trial.
The trial Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 19th December, 2002 held the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two- and-a-half year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
In the present appeal, challenge is to the conviction recorded and the sentence awarded to the appellant.
Criminal proceedings were set into motion on a written application Ex.P1 submitted by Gurmit Kaur PW-1 to DIG, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur on 25th March, 1996. In the application, she stated that on 4th February, 1996 at about 11.00 p.m., her husband was not at home Criminal Appeal No.50-SB of 2003 2 and she along with her children was sleeping, when suddenly she saw fire from the window. She along with her children immediately woke up and came outside. At that time, she saw the present appellant having a can of kerosene oil in his hand and his mother was also standing there armed with a Dang. The complainant raised a noise, due to which accused ran away from the spot. Due to the fire, wooden Ballas, three quilts, three beddings and five lady suits were burnt. She suffered a loss of Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/-. It was stated that earlier also the complainant had made a complaint to Police Station, Jalalabad, but the police had taken no action.
It is to be noticed here that occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 4th February, 1996 and the written application Ex.P1, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.P3 was registered, was submitted on 25th March, 1996, i.e. after a delay of one month and 21 days.
The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur charged the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC for having committed mischief by causing fire to the house of complainant Gurmit Kaur PW-1, which was used as a human dwelling and thereby caused destruction of the building.
Complainant Gurmit Kaur herself appeared as PW-1. She stated that about five years back at about 11.00 p.m. she along with her two daughters was sleeping in her house. Her husband was not present at that time. All of a sudden, she saw light of fire coming out of the window. She woke up and along with her children came out of the house. She found accused Surjit Singh having a can of kerosene oil in his hand and his mother Kashmiro Bai having a Dang in her hand. Both of them were identified by this witness and her daughter Satviran Rani. She stated that the fire spread in her house, as a result whereof pieces of wooden Ballas, three quilts, three Chaders (beddings), five lady suits, two cots, one double bed etc. were burnt. In all, articles worth Rs.8000/- were burnt. Criminal Appeal No.50-SB of 2003 3
Satviran Rani, daughter of complainant Gurmit Kaur, appeared as PW-2 and corroborated the testimony of her mother.
SI Cheta Singh PW-3 stated that he had prepared a rough site plan Ex.P4 of the spot after registration of the case. In cross-examination, he admitted that during investigation, he had conducted an enquiry at the spot from the persons of adjoining house and on the basis of his investigation he came to a conclusion that the accused were innocent. He had prepared a cancellation report and had forwarded the same to the Senior Superintendent of Police through the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He further stated that during investigation it came into his notice that both the accused had also made an attempt to put off the fire.
In the present case, only complainant Gurmit Kaur and her daughter Satviran Rani have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. No independent witness or any neighbour has been examined. Occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 4th February, 1996, whereas for the first time, a written complaint was submitted on 25th March, 1996. The investigating agency had found version of the complainant to be false. As per the complainant, the fire had spread in her house and the only loss suffered by her is burning of wooden Balas, three quilts, three beddings, five lady suits, two cots and one double bed. As to whether the fire damaged the building, no building expert has been examined. No draftsman has been examined by the investigating agency to say as to what harm was caused by the fire. Even no photographer was taken to the spot, and thus, photographs of the spot are also not produced before the Court. No visual observation of any witness is coming forth in the Court to assess as to whether indeed the fire had broken out or only a bald allegation has been leveled against the appellant.
Therefore, taking into consideration the delay in lodging the report, conclusion of the investigating agency that the accused were Criminal Appeal No.50-SB of 2003 4 innocent and non-examination of any independent witness or any neighbour, this Court is of the opinion that implicit reliance cannot be placed on the testimonies of complainant Gurmit Kaur PW-1 and her daughter Satviran Rani PW-2, especially when no corroboration is coming forward from any source in the form of visual observation.
Hence, the present appeal is accepted. Conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and he is hereby acquitted of the charges.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 16, 2011 rps