Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Kaku Singh Etc on 8 January, 2026
CRA-D-697-DBA-2004 -1
105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-697-DBA-2004
Date of Reserve:03.11.2025
Date of Decision: 08.01.2026
State of Punjab ...Appellant
Vs.
Kaku Singh and Others ...Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur
Present: Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Bhuwan Vats, Advocate as
Amicus Curiae for the respondents.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. By way of the instant appeal, the State of Punjab has challenged the legality of the impugned judgment dated 09.01.2004 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby, the respondents were ordered to be acquitted of the charge under Sections 452,307,325,323,34 of IPC.
2. The FIR Ex.PJ/2 in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement Ex.PJ made by Harbans Singh son of Sarwan Singh and the same has been reproduced below:-
"Statement of Harbans Singh S/o Sarwan Singh, Caste Jat, R/o Fatuhi Wale, P.S.Lambi, aged 68 years. I am a resident of Village Fatuhiwala and I have retired as inspector from the Police department and am drawing pension. I and my wife Jaspal Kaur reside in the house. On 3.1.1998 as usual, I and my wife both, slept in our bed room. At about 10.30 pm, I was to pass urine and so I came to bathroom to pass urine. After passing urine in the bath 1 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:29 ::: CRA-D-697-DBA-2004 -2 room, I was washing my hands on the wash-basin. Then I heard the low sound of whispering. I flashed torch light and saw that two unknown persons were sitting at the door of the chobara. I asked them as to who they were. Then they both went inside the chobara. I went upstairs to the door of the chobara.Then these unknown persons caught me and threw me down inside the chobara and started causing me injuries with their respective weapons. They caused me injuries on my head, face, teeth, little finger of left hand and on the body. I raised alarm saying "killed-killed". Then both these unknown persons ran away from the spot. Then my wife Jaspal Kaur came in the chobara on hearing my noise, and she helped me and brought me down in the room from the chobara. Then I became unconscious. Then my house-mates brought me in the hospital for treatment. I remained unconscious due to receipt of multiple injuries. Both the aforesaid unknown persons came to our house with the intention to kill me and have caused injuries. I have made my statement before you. I have heard it and is correct. Action be taken. I can identify both these unknown persons on their coming before me. Harbans Singh aforesaid Sd/- Harbans Singh Attested Sd/- Ravel Singh ASI I/C P.P. Killianwall PS Kambi 14.1.1998".
3. After the registration of the FIR, the usual investigation was conducted by the police and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was presented against all the three respondents. Since, the offence under Section 307 IPC was triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Ultimately, vide order dated 09.10.1998, the Trial Court ordered the framing of charge under Sections 452,307,325,323,34 of IPC against all the respondents, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
2 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:30 :::
CRA-D-697-DBA-2004 -3
4. During, the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Amandeep Singh Sandhu, who had medico legally examined Harbans Singh at 05:08 A.M on 04.01.1998 and found the following injuries:-
"Small wound about 1 inch sutured with crepets over the finger (over the left finger/small finger) Bilateral blackening of the eyes with oedema are present. There was 1 inch CLW sutured over left side of the forehead and there was 1 inch sutured wound (CLW) over the left cheek. Crepets were present over the Nose.
Bruise with with abrassions were present over the loft clevicale. Left upper mollars were moving.
Upper and lower incisors were missing".
In his deposition, he categorically stated that the attendant Amrikpal Singh had given the history of assault by some unknown persons and history of unconsciousness for two hours after the assault. Vide his report Ex.P.C, he had declared injuries No.5 and 8 on the person of Harbans Singh to be grievous in nature and the weapon used for causing injuries was declared by him to be blunt. Again, on 02.06.1998, on the request of the I.O, he again prepared a report Ex.PD, vide which injuries No.1,3 and 7 were also declared to be grievous in nature. Upon police request, he also declared that injury No.3 could be dangerous to life. The prosecution further examined PW-2 Randhir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of Village Singhewala. As per him, on 27.04.1998, all the three accused appeared before him and had suffered an extra judicial confession, admitting that on the date of occurrence Kaku, accused was armed with a wooden danda, whereas, Sukhdeep Singh @ Sadiq was armed with an iron rod and Jagdeep was unarmed. All the three accused had illicit relations with 3 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:30 ::: CRA-D-697-DBA-2004 -4 Manna D/o Baljit Singh and earlier also they used to take her to the Chaubara of the injured. On that day also, they had planned to take girl to Chaubara of Harbans Singh and for that purpose, they had gone there. At night, they were sitting outside the door of Chaubara and Harbans Singh had put torch light on them and enquired about their identity. He came upstairs with torch and to avoid the identification, they had attacked him. He produced all the accused before the police. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the accused were resident of Fatuhiwala and there was an elected Panchayat in that village. The prosecution examined Harbans Singh, complainant as PW-3, who reiterated the version as mentioned in the FIR. The prosecution further examined PW-4 Gurdev Singh, who was associated with the police, during the investigation. The prosecution further examined PW-5 Madho Parshad Draftsman, who inspected the spot at the instance of Jaspal Kaur and prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PN. The prosecution further examined Chharat Singh, Constable as PW-6, who had handed over the Special reports to the Illaqua Magistrate at about 09:30 P.M and afterwards, he handed over the reports to D.S.P Malout and S.S.P Muktsar. Constable Krishan Lal was examined as PW-7, who had delivered the five parcels sealed with the seal Mark "RS" to the office of F.S.L, Chandigarh. The prosecution further examined ASI Mohan Lal as PW-8, who tendered his affidavit EX.PO. Gursewak Singh Naib Tehsildar was examined as PW-9, who had recorded the statements of the accused. The prosecution further examined ASI Ravel Singh as PW-10, who was the Investigating Officer in the present case. He had conducted the investigation initially. Even, he had obtained the opinion regarding the fitness of the injured and had initially recorded the statement of Harbans Singh and on the basis of the said statement, 4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:30 ::: CRA-D-697-DBA-2004 -5 the FIR Ex.PJ/2 was registered by ASI Darshan. He also visited the place of occurrence and had made recoveries from the spot. He also arrested the accused and effected the recoveries from them. Dr. Kushaljit Singh Sodhi, Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, PGI, Chandigarh, was examined as PW-
11. He examined the X-ray of Harbans Singh and gave his opinion vide report Ex. PW.
5. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused and they stated that they had been falsely involved in the present case and had not caused any injuries to the injured.
6. Learned State counsel has vehemently argued that the Trial Court had completely overlooked the prosecution evidence, which conclusively proved the involvement of the respondents in the crime. The prosecution had clearly explained the delay of 13 days in registration of the case. In fact, initially, the occurrence had taken place on the night of 03.01.1998 and due to serious injuries, the complainant could not make his statement till 14.01.1998. Apart from that, ASI Ravel Singh, PW-10 had categorically stated that he was constantly visiting the doctors of DMC, Ludhiana, but the only eye witness/injured of the case remained unfit for making the statement. Due to the medical condition of the complainant, the FIR could not be registered on time. Still further, the Trial Court has wrongly held that the extra judicial confession suffered before PW-2 Randhir Singh was a weak evidence and there was no independent corroboration of the same. In fact, PW-2 Randhir Singh was an Ex- Sarpanch of Village Singhewala and he was an independent witness. He was neither related to the injured nor was having any kind of relation with the 5 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:30 ::: CRA-D-697-DBA-2004 -6 injured. Even, he was a respectable of the area and the accused had thought it appropriate to approach him for making an extra judicial confession, so that they may be helped by him. Still further, the statement of the injured was duly corroborated by the medical evidence in the shape of statement of PW-1 Dr. Amandeep Singh Sandhu, who categorically stated that the injuries were grievous and one injury was declared to be dangerous to life.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the incident had occurred at 10:30 P.M on 03.01.1998 and the injured had reached the hospital at about 05:00 AM on 04.01.1998, whereas, admittedly, the FIR in the present case was registered on 14.01.1998 and there was no explanation of the said delay. Apart from that, admittedly, Amrikpal Singh son of the injured and Hakam Singh son-in-law of the injured were also present and the FIR could be registered on their statements. However, none of them was examined by the prosecution. Still further, the conduct of the police was suspicious from the very beginning and suggested fabrication aimed at falsely implication of the accused in the present case. Apart from that, it is also apparent that there was no initial identification of the accused in the present case and the evidence regarding identification was subsequently introduced after a period of three months of the incident. Apart from that, it was also apparent from the statement of PW-3 Harbans Singh, injured that he had only seen two persons on the Chaubara, whereas, the trial was held against three accused. Still further, even from the other evidence, it was discernible that the participation of two persons was shown, whereas, the prosecution was launched against three accused, without any evidence. Learned counsel further submits that in the present case, the case was based on the circumstantial evidence and 6 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:30 ::: CRA-D-697-DBA-2004 -7 the prosecution was bound to conduct the test identification parade, to ascertain the identity of the accused. However, no such identification was carried out by the prosecution. Thus, the impugned judgment has been correctly passed and the appeal deserves to be dismissed by this Court.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully with their able assistance.
9. In the present case, as per the statements of PW-4, Gurdev Singh as well as PW-10 ASI Ravel Singh, the occurrence had taken place at about 10:30 P.M on 03.01.1998. Even, it is also apparent from the prosecution evidence that the injured had reached the hospital at about 05:00 AM on 04.01.1998. Even, the wife, son and son-in-law of the injured were present in the hospital, when medico legal examination was conducted. The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of the injured on 14.01.1998. No doubt, that the prosecution case cannot be rejected only on the ground of delay in registration of the FIR, however, in the instant case, the prosecution could not offer a valid explanation for the initial delay in registration of the FIR. In the present case, the FIR could very well be recorded on the basis of the statement of Amrikpal Singh, son of the injured and Hakam Singh, son-in-law of the injured, who were admittedly present at the hospital. Still further, even there was no evidence to show that Harbans Singh, injured was completely unfit to make statement till 14.01.1998. Thus, it is apparent that the delay in registration of the FIR, may have provided an opportunity to complainant to improve his version and to get the FIR registered by getting the averments incorporated as per his own convenience.
7 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:30 :::
CRA-D-697-DBA-2004 -8
10. Still further, in the present case, the respondents were not initially named in the FIR and it was a case of circumstantial evidence. Later on, the prosecution tried to build a case against the respondents on the ground that all the three respondents had appeared before the PW-2 Randhir Singh and made an extra judicial confession before him, who in turn produced them before the police. After producing them before the police, various recoveries were made from them and it was alleged that all the three respondents had actively participated in the commission of crime. However, again the statement of PW-2 Randhir Singh does not inspire confidence. PW-2 Randhir Singh is an Ex- Sarpanch and is resident of Village Singhewala, whereas, all the respondents belong to Village Fatuhiwala and admittedly, there was an elected Panchayat in Village Fatuhiwala. PW-2 Randhir Singh has not been able to explain as to under which circumstances, the respondents had chosen to appear before him and had confessed the guilt. There is no evidence to indicate that PW-2 Randhir Singh is respectable of the area and that the accused could have appeared before him to make such confession. Even otherwise, the evidence of extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and in absence of previous history of closeness between the parties, it is unsafe to rely upon such confession. Even otherwise, there were serious infirmities in the statement of PW-2 Randhir Singh and his statement has been rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court.
11. Still further, in the present case, there is serious dispute with regard to the identification of the accused as well as the number of the accused. In fact, PW-3 Harbans Singh injured/complainant also admitted that he had only two persons at the Chaubara, who had run away before arrival of his wife Jaspal Kaur. Even, the prosecution evidence also suggested the involvement of two 8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:30 ::: CRA-D-697-DBA-2004 -9 persons only and there was no other eye witness to the present occurrence. However,12.04.1998 i.e. after more than three months of the occurrence, while Harbans Singh was coming with Gurdev Singh to his house, he came across the accused and had identified them. Further, the occurrence had taken place in the night on 03.01.1998 and the identification of the accused at this distance of time was highly unbelievable. Apart from that, in the peculiar facts of the case, holding of test identification parade was a legal requirement and non holding of the same would render the prosecution case to be valueless and it is unfair to rely upon such prosecution evidence.
12. Even, otherwise, we have gone through the findings recorded by the Trial Court carefully and find no reasons to deviate from the same. The trial Court has taken into account the various infirmities in the prosecution case, which render the case to be highly unbelievable.
13. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Bhaskarrao and others Vs. State of Maharashtra", 2018 AIR (Supreme Court) 2222; 2018 (5) RCR (Criminal) 228 as follows:-
"14. As the trial court and High Court, having appreciated the evidence on record, has come to diametrically opposite conclusions, mandating herein to observe certain witness statements which may have an important bearing in this case. In the processes of appreciating the evidence at the appellate stage, we need to keep in mind the views of this court as expressed in Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1987(2) RCR (Criminal) 35 : 1987 CriLJ 974 -
"The High Court has not found in its judgment that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PW2 and PW6 were either unreasonable or perverse. What the 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:30 ::: CRA-D-697-DBA-2004 -10 High Court has done is to make an independent reappraisal of the evidence on its own and to set aside the acquittal merely on the ground that as a result of such reappreciation, the High Court was inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterized as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the court below has taken a view which is plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous."
14. 15. In Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 62 : 1996 CriLJ 2867, this Court observed:
"This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly 10 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:30 ::: CRA-D-697-DBA-2004 -11 untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed."
15. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal fails and is accordingly ordered to be dismissed.
16. Case property, if any, be dealt with, and destroyed after the expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal, in accordance with law.
17. The Trial Court record be sent back.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 08.01.2026 hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 11 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 22:55:30 :::