Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chhindi vs State Of Punjab on 29 July, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRA No.1340-SB of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA No.1340-SB of 2001
Date of Decision:-29.7.2013
Chhindi
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.K.S.Aulakh, AAG Punjab for the State.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The contour of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that on 18.7.1996, complainant HC Manjit Singh (PW1) (for brevity "the complainant") was stated to be on duty along with other police officials on the eve of fair of Baba Godari Shah in village Machhipal, District Kapurthala. SI/SHO Gian Singh had deputed the police officials on separate duties in the fair. The complainant and constable Balwant Singh (PW2) were assigned the duties near the Pandal, where the sitting arrangement for ladies was made. According to complainant that at about 3.30 P.M., appellant Chhindi son of Dhanna CRA No.1340-SB of 2001 2 came under the influence of liquor and sat near the ladies. The complainant repeatedly asked him to sit where the men were sitting, but in vain.
2. Sequelly, the case of the prosecution further proceeds that at about 5.30 P.M. as soon as, the complainant (PW1) was present on his duty, in the meantime, the appellant along with his brother accused Nirmal Singh alias Nikka and 7/8 other persons came to the spot. The appellant gave a knife blow, which hit on his (PW1) left cheek, whereas accused Nirmal Singh alias Nikka gave fist blow, which hit on his lips. The other accused caught hold of him, gave beatings and torn the shirt of his official uniform. He raised the noise, upon which, he was rescued by Constables Balwant Singh, Paramjit Singh and other organizers of the fair. Thereafter, the appellant and his other co-accused were stated to have decamped from the spot. Consequently, he (complainant) made his statement (Ex.PA) before ASI Amrik Singh (PW3) in this respect. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement (Ex.PA) of the complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the appellant and acquitted accused, vide FIR No.33 dated 18.7.1996 (Ex.PA/2), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 148, 186, 332 & 353 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Kapurthala in the manner depicted here-in-above.
3. After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the appellant and acquitted accused to face the trial for the pointed offences.
4. The perusal of the record would reveal that since the CRA No.1340-SB of 2001 3 appellant had also filed a criminal complaint u/s 308 IPC against the complainant and other police officials, arising out of the same incident/occurrence, which was pending in the Court of Session, so, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the instant case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge to be tried with the cross complaint case, through the medium of commitment order dated 14.5.1998, the operative part of which is (para 6) as under:-
"Today no witness appeared. It has been brought to notice by the learned defence counsel that Shindi accused has filed a criminal complaint U/s 308 of IPC against the prosecution witnesses and that complaint case was committed to the learned Court of Sessions and has been pending there for trial for 16.5.1998. This case is a cross-version case of the complaint case titled as State Vs. Gian Singh and others, which has been pending before the Learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. It is the case of the prosecution herein this case that the accused assaulted prosecution witnesses and caused injuries, whereas on the other hand, it is the case of the accused that the prosecution witnesses in this case caused hurts to them."
5. Having completed all the codal formalities, the appellant and acquitted accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of indicated offences by the trial Court. As they did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.
6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the appellant and acquitted accused, examined PW1 complainant HC Manjit Singh, who has made the following statement:-
"On 18.7.1996, I was posted at Police Post Sidhwan Dona, under Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala. On that day, I accompanied with C.Balwant Singh, C-2 Baljit Singh had gone from the police post to Machhipal village in connection with fair of Baba Godari Shah. We were put on duty there. SI Gian Singh and C.Paramjit Singh had also reached there on duty from police station Sadar, Kapurthala. SI Gian Singh put us on duty at different places in CRA No.1340-SB of 2001 4 the fair. The fair is held in an area of about two kanals. I and C.Balwant Singh were put on duty at the place where ladies were sitting. At about 3.30 P.M. accused Chhindi now present in court under the influence of liquor came at that place where we were on duty. We sent him back from that place three/four times as he was trying to sit with ladies there. At about 5.30 P.M. accused Chhindi accompanied with his brother accused Nirmal @ Nikka and 7/8 other persons came there. Accused Balwinder Singh, accused Harjinder, Accused Gurbux Singh and Gurbachan Singh now present in court had also accompanied accused Chhindi at that time. Accused Chhindi gave me a knife blow which hit me on my left cheek. Accused Nirmal Singh @ Nikka gave me fist blow which hit me on my lips. The other accused caught hold of me and gave me beatings, they had torn my shirt of my official uniform. I raised raula upon which I was rescued by C.Balwant Singh, C.Paramjit Singh and other organizers of the fair. The accused then left me and ran away. I made my statement Ex.PA before ASI Amrik Singh which was read over to me and I signed the same in token of its correctness. (At this stage, a sealed parcel has been opened and a shirt has been taken from it). I have seen my shirt Ex.P1 and it is the same which I was wearing at the time of occurrence."
7. Likewise, PW2 C.Balwant Singh has attempted to corroborate the statement of PW1. PW4 Balbir Singh, an another eye witness, has, inter-alia, stated that the appellant came there at 5.30 p.m. under the influence of liquor. He was trying to sit at the place where ladies were sitting. PW1 repeatedly stopped him from sitting near the ladies, but in vain. Thereafter, all the accused came there and they gave pushes to him (PW1). Accused collectively torn the shirt of his official uniform. One out of the accused had given injury on his cheek and blood started oozing out from there. The other police officials on duty saved him. The appellant and other co-accused thereafter slipped away from the place of occurrence.
8. Similarly, PW3 ASI Amrik Singh has deposed that on 18.7.1996, he was present in the fair of Peer Baba in village Machhipal. CRA No.1340-SB of 2001 5 PW1 HC Manjit Singh was also on duty in the fair. He made his statement (Ex.PA) before him and signed the same in token of its correctness. He (PW3) made endorsement (Ex.PA/1) on it and sent the same to the police station for registration of the case, on the basis of which, the formal FIR (Ex.PA/2) was recorded by ASI Joginder Singh. He has stated that at that time, PW1 was having an injury on his left cheek and shirt of his uniform was torn. He took into possession the torn shirt (Ex.P1), vide recovery memo (Ex.PB) attested by the witnesses. Thereafter, he sent PW1 for medical examination with the request (Ex.PC). He inspected the spot and prepared the rough site plan (Ex.PD) with its correct marginal notes.
9. The last to note is the testimony of PW5 Dr.Satbir Singh, who has medico legally examined HC Manjit Singh (PW1) aged 67 years, by way of MLR (Ex.PE), pictorial diagram (Ex.PE/1) and found one incised wound 1 cm x 0.1 cm skin deep on the left cheek, one reddish abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.2 cm on the left side, just behind the left angle of mouth and complain of pain. No other external mark of injury was noticed by him. He confirmed in his cross-examination that injury No.1 on the person of PW1 could be self suffered.
10. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellant and acquitted accused were recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable them to explain any circumstance appearing against them therein, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.PC. However, the appellant has denied the prosecution evidence in its entirety and pleaded false implication in the following CRA No.1340-SB of 2001 6 manner:-
"It is a false case. I was alone in the Mela. My co-accused were not with me. The police officials gave me merciless beating to me and I received injuries and to find an escape from my injuries the police had registered a false case against me and my co-accused. I later on filed a complaint u/s 308 IPC etc. against Gian Singh, Paramjit Singh, Manjit Singh, Baljit Singh and Balwant Singh all police officials for causing me injuries. My co-accused are my witnesses in the complaint."
11. Likewise, the other accused have also adopted the same line of defence. The appellant, in order to prove his defence, has examined DW1 Ajit Singh, Sarpanch of village Machhipal and DW2 Joginder Singh Sarpanch of village Kaulpur. He has also placed reliance upon the contradictory statement (Ex.DA) of Balbir Singh (PW4) in documentary evidence. This is the entire evidence brought on record by the parties.
12. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, all other co-accused were acquitted. At the same time, only appellant Chhindi was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (in short "RI") for a period of three months for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 186 IPC, to undergo RI for a period three years, to pay a fine of ` 5000/-, in default thereof to further undergo RI for six months u/s 332 IPC, to undergo RI for a period of two years, to pay a fine of ` 5000/- and in default thereof to further undergo RI for six months u/s 353 IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, by means of impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 2.11.2001 by the trial Court.
13. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. That is how I am seized of the matter.
CRA No.1340-SB of 2001 7
14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the evidence on record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant appeal deserves to be accepted for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.
15. As is evident from the record that appellant claimed that the complainant and other police officials gave merciless beatings to him in the fair. He filed the cross criminal complaint against them u/s 308 IPC with regard to the same incident and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials to cover up their inaction & to save their own skin. In the instant case, the prosecution claimed that on 18.7.1996, the complainant (PW1) was on duty in connection with fair of Baba Godari Shah in village Machhipal. At about 3.30 P.M., the appellant came there under the influence of liquor and sat in the Pandal near the ladies. PW1 repeatedly asked him to go to men's Pandal, but in vain. Thereafter at about 5.30 P.M., as soon as, he was on duty, the appellant, his brother Nirmal Singh alias Nikka along with 7/8 other persons came to the spot. The appellant gave a knife blow on the left side of his cheek, whereas his brother accused Nirmal Singh alias Nikka gave him fist blow, which hit on his lips. The other accused caught hold of him, gave him beating and torn the shirt of his uniform. PW2 C. Balwant Singh has also so stated.
16. Therefore, to me, the story of the prosecution is highly improbable. It has come in the evidence that heavy contingent of police force armed with official weapons were present in the fair. So much so, PW1 was armed with a Carbine. Then, it is impossible to believe that the CRA No.1340-SB of 2001 8 appellant would disobey the heavy contingent of police force and insisted to sit in the ladies Pandal at 3.30 P.M. at the first instance. Thereafter, he would again come along with 7/8 other persons at about 5.30 P.M. and caused injuries to the complainant (PW1) in the presence of police officials, as asserted by PW1 and PW2.
17. Above-all, it is very difficult to consume that after causing the knife injury on the cheek of complainant, the appellant would escape from the police force. He was not arrested at the spot and was arrested many days after the occurrence. Moreover, the story of the prosecution that PW1 was attacked by the appellant along with 7/8 other co-accused was a concocted version and disbelieved by the trial Court while acquitting the other co-accused.
18. No doubt, the prosecution has examined PW4 Balbir Singh, an independent witness of the occurrence, but he has not uttered a single word that the first incident had occurred at about 3.30 P.M. He has only stated that at about 5.30 PM, he was standing near the ladies Pandal. At that time, the appellant was under the influence of liquor. He was trying to sit at the place, where ladies were sitting, but the complainant (PW1) stopped him (appellant), but in vain. Thereafter, all the accused came there and pushed him, collectively torn the shirt of his uniform and one out of them had given an injury to the complainant on his cheek. Whereas the definite case of PW1 and PW2 was that initially, the appellant was stopped from sitting in the ladies Pandal at about 3.30 P.M. Subsequently, he ran away and at about 5.30 P.M., all the accused came and second incident had occurred in the manner described here-in-above. CRA No.1340-SB of 2001 9
19. Not only that, according to PW1 & PW2 that it was the appellant, who inflicted a knife blow on the cheek of complainant and his brother Nirmal Singh caused a fist blow and torn the shirt of his uniform. On the contrary, PW4 has categorically stated that all the accused came there, pushed HC Manjit Singh (PW1), collectively torn the shirt of his uniform and one out of them had given the injury to him. Meaning thereby, PW4 an independent witness of the occurrence, has totally demolished the evidence of PW1 & PW2 in this relevant connection. As there are inherent contradictions and improbabilities in the statements of PW1 & PW2 on the one side and independent witness PW4 on the other side as regards the timings and manner of the incidents in question are concerned, therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed upon their statements. Thus, the prosecution is concealing the origin of the occurrence and its evidence does not inspire confidence.
20. This is not the end of the matter. The positive case of the prosecution is that duty officer Gian Singh, SI/SHO of Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala, had assigned the individual duty to the police officials, including the complainant (PW1). The prosecution did not examine him to prove that PW1 was actually on duty at the time of occurrence. So much so, PW1 did not make any complaint to SI Gian Singh duty officer at the relevant time. PW2 C.Balwant Singh has admitted that at the time of occurrence, Mr. Janjua, ADC Kapurthala, SI Gian Singh and Ajit Singh, Sarpanch of village Machhipal (DW1) were sitting on the stage. It remained an unfolded mystery as to why the matter was not reported to the ADC or as to why PW1 did not record his CRA No.1340-SB of 2001 10 statement before SI Gian Singh duty officer, who was over-all In-charge of the fair and was present at the spot. The prosecution has neither examined the ADC nor examined SI Gian Singh, for the reasons best known to it. PW3 ASI Amrik Singh, who recorded the statement (Ex.PA) of the complainant, which formed the basis of FIR (Ex.PA/2), did not utter a single word about the pointed incidents.
21. As indicated here-in-above, the appellant, from the very beginning, has set up a definite plea of defence that the police officials gave him merciless beatings and caused multiple injuries to him. He has been falsely implicated in this case by the police to save their own skin and escape from liability. He filed a complaint u/s 308 IPC against the police officials. PW2 has categorically admitted that ADC Kapurthala and Ajit Singh, Sarpanch (DW1) were present at the stage/dias at the time of occurrence. Ajit Singh, while appearing as DW1, has maintained, on oath, that he was the Sarpanch of village Machhipal at the relevant time and fair was managed under his supervision. The SDM was also present in the fair. The police was called to maintain the law and order situation, including PW1. He has categorically stated that the police, including the complainant (PW1), was beating the appellant, who had come to see the fair. He was sitting 5/7 karams away from the stage. As the appellant insisted that he would sit near the stage, therefore, the police officials gave him beatings. He intervened and rescued him from the police officials.
22. Similarly, DW2 Joginder Singh, Sarpanch of village Kaulpur, has also, inter-alia, maintained that SI Gian Singh and CRA No.1340-SB of 2001 11 complainant HC Manjit Singh gave beatings to the appellant with dandas. They were removing him from near the stage and asked him to sit at a distance from the stage, but the appellant refused and police officials felt offended, gave beatings and caused injuries to him. He (DW2) and other persons intervened and rescued him from the police officials. In this manner, DW1 and DW2 have duly supported the probable plea of defence of the appellant.
23. Thus, the prosecution has concealed the origin of and the occurrence did not take place in the manner projected by it. On the contrary, the evidence on record would suggest that in fact, the appellant was under the influence of liquor and was sitting near the stage. The police officials asked him not to sit there. He refused to oblige and then the police gave beatings and caused injuries to him. The evidence of DW1 and DW2, whose presence is admitted at the spot, is reliable and trust worthy in this respect. On the contrary, the line of defence adopted by the appellant appears to be probable. In that eventuality, the possibility of his false implication in this case by the police in order to save their own skin, to cover up their inaction and to create a false defence in cross criminal complaint case u/s 308 IPC filed by the appellant, cannot be ruled out.
24. Therefore, if the fact of highly improbable version of the prosecution, insufficient, contradictory evidence of PW1, PW2 & PW4 and totality of the facts & circumstances, emitting out of the record as discussed here-in-above, are put together, then, to my mind, the conclusion is inescapable and irresistible that the evidence brought on CRA No.1340-SB of 2001 12 record by the prosecution falls short as is required to prove the criminal charges against the appellant, which entails the benefit of doubt and his acquittal as well.
25. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
26. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant appeal is hereby accepted. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence are set aside. Having extended the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
Needless to mention that the necessary compliance and procedural consequences would naturally follow.
29.7.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No