Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Bhalla vs State Of Punjab on 8 February, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Criminal Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000 (O&M)
Date of decision : 08.02.2012
Amandeep Bhalla .....Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate
for the appellant
(in Crl. Appeal No. 849-SB of 2000)
Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate
for the appellant
(in Crl. Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000)
Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate
for the appellant
(in Crl. Appeal No. 852-SB of 2000)
Mr. K.S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab
for the State.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of three Criminal Appeal Nos. 824- SB, 849-SB and 852-SB of 2000.
Three students of Modi College, Patiala are in appeal against their conviction recorded under Sections 307, 324 and 34 IPC. All the three appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for an offence under Section 307 IPC coupled with fine of ` 2000/- They have further been Criminal Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000 (O&M) 2 sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for their conviction under Section 324 IPC and fine of ` 1000/-. They have, accordingly, filed the present appeal.
The prosecution story, as revealed from the statement made by one Randhir Singh (PW4), shows that the appellants Ritesh Chopra @ Ratesh Chopra, Amandeep Singh Bhalla and Rahul Kumar reached their college premises on 17.09.1993. Appellant- Ritesh Chopra asked Hardev Singh to come over to a side as he wanted to talk to him in seclusion. In this manner, Hardev Singh was taken to a corner near the Cashier's office. He then allegedly gave two blows on the chest of Hardev Singh with his kirch. The other two appellants namely Amandeep Singh Bhalla and Rahul Kumar allegedly exhorted him to finish Hardev Singh. The injured fell down when complainant, Randhir Singh (PW4) raised raula saying 'Na Maro Na Maro' (Don't hit Don't hit). The appellant, thereafter, fled from the scene through the window of the gate. The motive behind the occurrence is stated to be the dispute between Ritesh Chopra and Hardev Singh prior to the occurrence.
Hardev Singh was admitted in the hospital. The FIR was lodged on the statement made by Randhir Singh (PW4) to Sub Inspector Gurbax Singh. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 324/34 IPC. The investigation was set in motion. In supplementary statement made by Randhir Singh (PW4), he has stated that he made inquiry about the identity of two other boys, who were present at the place of occurrence and came to know that they Criminal Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000 (O&M) 3 were Amandeep Bhalla son of Joginder Mohan and Rahul Kumar son of Hari Chand. The complainant further stated that he could identify them if produced before him. The investigation was conducted and Medico Legal Report of the injured was obtained from Dr. Sukhchain Singh Brar, who opined that injury No. 1 suffered by Hardev Singh was dangerous to life. He, however, described injury No. 2 simply in nature. On the basis of this opinion, offence under Section 307 IPC was added. On completion of investigation, challan was presented, which led to prosecution of the appellants and their ultimate conviction for the offences for which they were charged.
In support of this, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Five witnesses are doctors, who had attended on to the injured. Randhir Singh, complainant was examined as PW-4. Baljinder Singh another person named by the injured was examined as PW5. The injured himself appeared and was examined as PW-10. Other formal witnesses were also examined. Thereafter, all incriminating circumstances were put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They all pleaded innocence and denied the circumstances and the evidences that were put to them. The appellate Court after appreciating the evidence, came to conclude that the case of intent of murder was made out and, accordingly, convicted the appellant-Ritesh Chopra for having caused the injury whereas remaining two appellants were held guilty with the aid of Section 34 IPC.
With the assistance of Mr. Bains, Mr. Kuldip Sanwal and Criminal Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000 (O&M) 4 Mr. Baljinder Singh, counsel appearing for appellants-Ritesh Chopra, Amandeep Singh Bhalla and Rahul Kumar respectively and the State counsel, I have gone through the evidence led by the prosecution. The counsel have very emphatically pleaded that from the facts, as established, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out and the only charge, which may be made out from the evidence, as produced, would be under Section 324 IPC. On this aspect, State counsel has joined issue with the counsel for the appellants and would plead that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the offences alleged against the appellants. As per the State counsel, appellant-Ritesh Chopra is alleged to have caused 3½ cm deep injury with kirch on the chest of the victim and this injury in itself would indicate that he had clear intention to commit the murder of the victim and hence the finding of the trial Court convicting the appellant-Ritesh Chopra for an offence under Section 307 IPC and his co-accused with the aid of Section 34 IPC is clearly made out.
Counsel for the appellant have highlighted the evidence to show that prosecution was unable to lead sufficient evidence either through the doctor or through the victim himself to show that there was an intention on the part of any of the appellant to make an attempt to take life of the victim. Counsel would highlight that though two of the appellants were statedly armed with kirpan but the weapons were never used. If the appellants had carried any intention to cause the death of the victim, they would not have stood silently while one of the appellant had caused injury to the victim. As per the Criminal Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000 (O&M) 5 counsel, this in itself is indicative of two aspects. Either two of the appellants were not present and have just been named or that none of the appellants had carried any intention to take the life of the victim. The counsel would also highlight that this FIR was lodged on the statement of Randhir Singh (PW4). This witness, however, resiled from his statement while appearing before the Court. PW4 clearly stated that he never made any statement and the occurrence, if any, had not taken place in his presence. To explain the fact that he was infact the person, who had lodged the complaint, the witness has stated that his signatures were obtained by the police in blank and, accordingly, the FIR was lodged. As per the witness, he was not present at the place of occurrence. Further dent is caused to the case of the prosecution when the second eye-witness, stated to be present at the time of occurrence, also resiled from his statement stated to have been given to the police during the course of investigation. The victim has named Baljinder Singh (PW5) to be present at the scene and he with PW4 had evacuated the victim to the hospital. Baljinder Singh also did not support the case of the prosecution. PW5 has stated that he was not present at the scene and had not made any statement before the police. PW-5 has also explained away his statement recorded by police by saying that his signatures were obtained in blank by the police. Thus, the prosecution is left with sole testimony of the victim, who statedly was unfit to make the statement and so this FIR was lodged by Randhir Singh (PW4) .
Criminal Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000 (O&M) 6
Counsel for the appellants would find further holes in the version of the victim as well by referring to the evidence of doctors, who appeared for the prosecution. As already noticed, the prosecution had infact examined five doctors namely Dr. Ranjit Singh (PW1), Dr. Sukhcharan Singh Brar (PW2), Dr. S.S. Rattol (PW3), Dr. Vidur Bhalla (PW7) and Jatinder Pal Singh (PW9). Jatinder Pal Singh (PW9) was produced only to say that victim was not in a fit state to make the statement. Dr. Vidur Bhalla (PW7) was examined to produce the record to show that the victim had been operated. The victim infact had been operated by Dr. S.S. Rattol, who was the operating surgeon. He was never asked by the prosecution to opine about the nature of the injury suffered by the victim. This fact is revealed from the perusal of his evidence before the Court. No doubt, Dr. Sukhcharan Singh Brar, PW2, has stated that injury No. 1 was dangerous to life but when cross examined, PW3 clearly conceded that it was for the operating surgeon to opine about the nature of the injury. This opinion about nature of injury No. 1 to be dangerous to life was on the basis of surgeon's opinion, which appropriately could have been asked from PW3. Even otherwise, he was confronted with the fact recorded in the Medico Legal Report, where the certificate given in regard to the willingness of the victim to undergo operation was found to have been tampered with. The certificate showed that the victim had stated that he was willing for medico legal examination. The certificate was stated to have been read over to the injured, who had signed the same. It was put to the witness that this Criminal Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000 (O&M) 7 certificate infact had been signed by Hardev Singh himself and he had obtained the copy of MLR on the same day. The evidence of PW3 would also show that the wording of the certificate reading that "I am willing for my operation under any kind of Anesthesia at my own risk". The word 'my' was scored of 'and of my brother' was added. This manipulation appears to have been done to show that the victim was not in fit position to make the statement. This fact has been highlighted by the prosecution to urge that he was not in a position to lodge the FIR and was not in a position to make statement and so the FIR was lodged by one Randhir Singh (PW4). The defence would highlight this aspect to urge that the victim was fit to make a statement but was shown unfit to justify lodging of FIR by PW4.
Not only that, PW3 was also questioned by the defence as to whether he had opined the injury to be dangerous to the life of the victim. The attention of the witness was also drawn to the fact that in the bed ticket of the victim, it was not recorded anywhere that the injured was unconscious and unfit to make the statement at any time. The witness, however, had volunteered to state that there was an opinion of doctor that the patient was not fit to make statement. The condition of the patient including Blood Pressure and pulse was normal. As per PW3, injury No. 1 was not of much depth and the pleura was intact though the exact direction of the injury cannot be made out. Injury No. 2 was from the left side of the body going through the stomach and it was neither downwards nor upward. Finally, the witness stated that police neither obtained his opinion Criminal Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000 (O&M) 8 regarding the fact whether this injury was dangerous to life or not or whether it was simple.
The opinion about the kind of weapon used also, as per this witness, could be given by the doctor who medico legally examined the injured. This witness, accordingly, stated that it could not be stated whether both these injuries could be the result of different weapons. The victim was medico legally examined by Dr. Sukhcharan Singh (PW2). PW2 after having noticed the injuries stated that the nature of injuries No. 1 and 2 could be given after surgeon's opinion. As can be inferred from the following evidence recorded through him:-
"Nature of injuries No. 1 and 2 after Surgeon opinion".
This witness subsequently gave his opinion after going through the Surgeon's opinion and then opined that injury No. 1 was dangerous to life whereas injury No. 2 was simple. This witness otherwise conceded that there is a column for certificate in Medico Legal Report, which is to the following effect:-
'Certified that I am willing for medico legal examination. (2) I have not been medico legally examined before. (3) All the injuries have been noted.
(4) Above statement is true and nothing has been concealed.' As per this witness, this certificate was read over to the injured, who is required to sign the same and in the present case, the certificate was signed by Hardev Singh himself. As already noticed, Criminal Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000 (O&M) 9 Hardev Singh himself had obtained the copy of MLR from the witness on the same day that too when it was immediately prepared.
Possibility of injuries No. 1 and 2 by different weapons cannot be ruled out. No entry was made in the police information register regarding admission of the injured with the medico legal examination though in the bed ticket it was written that 'police informed'. Dr. Sukhcharan Singh Brar (PW2) was also confronted with the overwriting on the application moved by the Investigating Officer for obtaining his opinion in regard to the nature of injury. Submission is that some different date was written where word 'miti' (date) in Punjabi was overwritten to hide the date, which may have been put.
During the arguments, the counsel for the appellants have also referred to overwriting in figure '9' in the date put by the doctor while giving his opinion. From this, the counsel would contend that this application, apparently, was given on some different dates but was shown to have been given on the dates as mentioned in the application. The other fact, which has been highlighted by the counsel for the appellants, is the track record of the victim. During his cross examination, his attention was drawn to number of FIRs, in which he was the accused. In some of the cases, he was alleged to be involved in serious cases of encounter in the company of some other persons. The victim (PW10) admitted to have been arrested in said cases. It was put to him that he had formed the group of Moosa Khan and Sher Khan etc. though this fact was denied by him. It was further suggested to him that they used to act and behave in the area Criminal Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000 (O&M) 10 as bullies. PW-10 otherwise conceded that somebody has sprinkled acid on him. In this regard, the defence had suggested to him that this was done as he used to demand hafta from the shopkeepers. In response, the witness stated that he was a man of means and a respectable person and Vice Chairman of Land Mortgage Bank, Patiala and was Sarpanch of the village. In response to question, PW10 had stated that he was not aware that Moosa Khan had caused injury to Ritesh Chopra and that case under Sections 324, 506, 148 & 149 IPC was registered on 28.03.1995. Concededly some cases were registered against the witness as can be made out from his version that he had entered into compromise in some of the cases.
On the totality of these facts and circumstances and the fact that the witness PW-10 had left studies in 1994, counsel would contend that he is bully and ruffian, who used to indulge in various criminal activities. The fact that the witness claimed himself to be an elected Sarpanch would show that he was less interested in studies and was more interested in dabbling in politics. Be that as it may, it is now to be seen whether from the nature of injuries or from the fact and circumstances in this case, the offence under Section 307 IPC would be made out against the appellants or not. There is no evidence led by the prosecution to show that all the appellants came with some pre-arranged plan and motive. No doubt that common intention can be formed at the spur of moment at the time of incident but the fact that two of the appellants, who were allegedly armed with Criminal Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000 (O&M) 11 weapons had, as per showing of prosecution, not used the same. In case, there was meeting of mind to make an attempt or to cause the death of the victim, they could not be expected to remain silent spectator. No doubt, there are direct allegation against Ritesh Chopra-appellant for having used kirch in causing these two injuries but the prosecution version received a serious dent when two of the eye witnesses did not support its case and rather they were declared hostile. The case set up by the victim himself also was that this incident took place in the presence of PW4 and PW5. PW4 and PW5 have expressed complete ignorance about the incident. They were declared hostile and were allowed to be addressed the question of nature of cross examination by the prosecution. Except for drawing their attention to their previous version, nothing could be brought out by the prosecution The previous version, as recorded, by the police is explained by the witnesses by stating that they were made to sign on blank papers and statements were so created. The prosecution, therefore, is left with the statement of the victim (PW10) alone. To an extent, his version will receive support from the medical evidence as certainly injuries were found on the body of the victim. There may appear a doubt in regard to the nature of injuries as would emerge from the version of two doctors i.e. PW2 and PW3. There is even doubt about the nature of injuries. The manner in which the defence was able to establish the state of mind of the victim, who himself had volunteered for undergoing the operation and collecting the MLR and various other facts, would indicate that he was not in Criminal Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000 (O&M) 12 any unfit position as he has tried to make out. Apparently, this has been done perhaps to explain the delay on the part of investigating agency to record the statement of the victim himself. The complaint was got registered on the statement made by the witness, who has denied having given any such statement. This would, therefore, raise a doubt, which prosecution has been unable to explain. However, considering the fact that there were injuries on the body of the victim, which the prosecution could not conclusively establish to be of nature, to put the life of the victim to danger, the charge under Section 307 IPC is not seen fully proved. The injury is certainly found to be simple in nature. On that basis, the appellants can not escape responsibility for their conviction for an offence under Section 324 IPC. Injury No. 1 could not be fully established to be of the nature to threaten the life of the victim. The prosecution was not able to establish that this injury was dangerous to life to attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC.
In this case, the prosecution mainly has based its case to nature of injury to plead that the offence under Section 307 IPC was made out. It may need a notice that initially the FIR was registered against the appellants under Sections 324/34 IPC. It is only on the basis of the opinion of the doctor that offence under Section 307 IPC was subsequently added. The names of the two appellants also appeared in the supplementary statement made by the complainant from which he later on resiled. The name of these two appellants being subsequently introduced because of some other consideration Criminal Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000 (O&M) 13 also cannot ruled out. The version of the victim alone could not be such, which would inspire implicit confidence to believe and to rely upon him fully.
Taking the totality of facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution was not able to establish the charge under Section 307 IPC against the appellants. However, the evidence sufficiently established the offence of Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against all the appellants. The judgment under appeal convicting the appellants under Sections 307 IPC, therefore, is set aside. The conviction of the appellants under Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, however, is maintained. The appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for their conviction under Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
Considering the fact that it is an old incident, where the fight has taken place in college premises. By now, all the appellants as well as the victim must have grown mature. The pendency of all the proceedings and the prolonged proceedings apparently have brought some wise counsel on all the appellants. As per the counsel, the appellants are fully settled in life. Any incarceration, at this stage, will retard their life and would deny their chances to reform. Considering all the facts, the sentence imposed on the appellants is reduced to already undergone. The appellants, however, would appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala to give an undertaking for maintaining good behaviour and exhibiting good conduct for a period of six months.
Criminal Appeal No. 824-SB of 2000 (O&M) 14
The appeal are, accordingly, partly allowed in the above terms.
February 08, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE