Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Baljit Singh on 10 May, 2012
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S. S. Saron, Naresh Kumar Sanghi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002
Date of decision: 10.05.2012
State of Haryana
.....Appellant.
Versus
Baljit Singh .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. S. SARON.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI.
Present: Mr. H. S. Deol, Addl. AG, Haryana for the appellant.
Mr.B. S. Siroha, Advocate for the respondent.
****
S.S. SARON, J.
This appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana against the acquittal of the respondent Baljit Singh by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 307 and 356 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'-for short); besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The FIR (Ex.PB) was registered on the statement (Ex.PA) of Murti Devi (PW-6) wife of Dharambir (PW-8) resident of House No.740, Urban Estate-II, Hisar. It is stated by Murti Devi (PW-6) complainant that she was resident of the aforesaid address and had been doing domestic work. On 29.09.1999 at about 5.30 pm, she was standing at the door of her house. Her husband's younger brother ('devar') namely Satbir son of Chattar Singh resident of Mela Kothi and her husband Dharambir (PW-8) Amit Khanchiwere at the rear side of their house near the buffalo. In the meantime Baljit 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 2- (respondent) resident of House No.726, Urban Estate-II, Hisar came there on his scooter. On his reaching there, he stopped his scooter and hit Murti Devi (PW-6) on her neck with his hand and broke her chain. Murti Devi (PW-6) raised an alarm and went inside the court yard of her house. From behind her, Baljit Singh (respondent) fired a shot from his pistol which hit her towards the right side of her head above the ear. On hearing her alarm, her husband (PW-8) and her husband's younger brother ('devar') Satbir came there. On seeing them, Baljit (respondent) by taking his scooter sped away. They had an old enmity with Baljit (respondent) and there were cases pending between them. Thereafter, Dharambir (PW-8) husband of Murti Devi (PW-6) got her admitted in the hospital. Her statement was recorded by Dharampal SI (PW-11). Baljit (respondent) it is stated had fired a shot at her with an intention to kill her. Murti Devi (PW-6) heard her statement which was correct. She signed the same in Hindi, which was attested by Dharampal SI (PW-11).
Police proceedings (Ex.PA/1) were recorded by Dharampal SI (PW-11) to the effect that he along with Constable Jai Ram on a government motorcycle No.HR-20-3479 were present near DC Colony in connection with patrolling when Constable Zile Singh came there and submitted before him a VT (Verbal Transmission) with regard to the admission of Murti Devi (PW-6) in the General Hospital, Hisar. Dharampal SI (PW-11) along with his companions reached General Hospital, Hisar for recording statement. He obtained memo (ruqa) and MLR from the police post. In the memo (ruqa), the doctor had recorded that the injured Murti Devi (PW-6) was fit to make a statement. After reaching ward No.5, he recorded the statement of Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 3- Murti Devi (PW-6), which was reduced to writing and was read over and explained to her. She after admitting the same to be correct signed it in Hindi which was attested by Dharampal SI (PW-11). In the MLR of Murti Devi (PW-6), the doctor had mentioned one injury with fire arm and x-ray was advised. On the basis of the statement (Ex.PA) and the MLR, offences under Sections 307 and 356 IPC were found to be committed. The statement (Ex.PA) was sent to the Police Station through Constable Zile Singh for registration of a case (FIR). Its number was asked to be intimated. Dharampal SI (PW-11) along with Constable Jai Ram accompanying him proceeded to the place of occurrence. At the Police Station, Sampat Ram SI officiating SHO (PW-2) received the statement (Ex.PA) of Murti Devi (PW-6) through Constable Zile Singh and a case FIR (Ex.PB) for the aforesaid offences was registered. The police file along with writing in original was being sent to Dharampal SI (PW-11) through Constable Zile Singh who had brought it for further proceedings. Copies of the FIR were prepared which were sent through 'dak' (post) to the higher officers.
Dharampal SI (PW-11) reached the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan (Ex.PM) with correct marginal notes. He recorded statements of Satbir and Dharambir (PW-8) under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C'-for short). On 01.10.1999, Dharampal SI (PW-11) received VT message from SHO Barwala that Baljit (respondent) was admitted in the hospital of Ant Ram at Barwala. In the said hospital, Murti Devi (PW-6) was also admitted there. Dharampal SI (PW-11) recorded their statements in the case diary. Dharampal SI (PW-11) went to Ant Ram Hospital at Barwala and enquired about Baljit (respondent) vide Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 4- application (Ex.PN) dated 06.10.1999. It was stated in the said application that accused Bajit (respondent) had been admitted in the Hospital on the night of 05.10.1999 who was to be produced in the Court on that day (i.e. 05.10.1999). It was asked to be stated whether the accused (respondent) was admitted or not. The doctor made an endorsement (Ex.PN/1) that the patient was admitted in the hospital on 05.10.1999 was discharged on 06.10.1999 after proper investigation. Baljit (respondent) was joined in the investigation of this case in the hospital and he was arrested there. On reaching Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar, he was put in the police lock up. On the same day, Baljit (respondent) was produced before the Magistrate and police remand for two days was obtained. The respondent was interrogated outside Court in the court complex in the presence of Pawan Kumar (PW-10) and Chander Bhan Constable. The respondent made a disclosure statement (Ex.PJ) that he had kept a country made pistol in his House No.432 Sector-15-A on the nothern-eastern side of his house under the bricks and except for him none else knew about it. He could get the same recovered. The disclosure statement (Ex.PJ) was attested by Chander Bhan and Pawan Kumar (PW-10) and it was signed by the respondent. The disclosure statement (Ex.PJ) is dated 04.10.1999. In pursuance of the disclosure statement (Ex.PJ), Baljit (respondent) led the police party to his house and got recovered a country made pistol from the nothern-eastern part of the house after lifting the bricks. Sketch (Ex.PK) of the pistol was prepared. The memo of the sketch is dated 04.10.1999. The pistol was made into a parcel and sealed with the seal 'DS'. The seal after use was handed over to Pawan Kumar (PW-10). Dharampal SI (PW-11) recorded Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 5- statements of PWs. The accused was got admitted in the Civil Hospital, Hisar on 05.10.1999. On 06.10.1999, Dharampal SI (PW-11) moved an application (Ex.PL) to know whether the accused was admitted in the hospital or not. The doctor informed Dharampal SI (PW-11) vide his report (Ex.PL/1) that the accused (respondent) was discharged. It is stated by Dharampal SI (PW-11) that he had inadvertently stated in the earlier part of his statement that an application (Ex.PL) (sic. - Ex.PN) was moved to the doctor of Ant Ram Hospital and that the doctor made his endorsement (Ex.PL/1) (sic. - Ex.PN/1). In fact this application (Ex.PL) (sic. - Ex.PN) was moved by him on 6.10.1999 before the doctor of Civil Hospital, Hisar. The accused was arrested by him from the premises of Ant Ram Hospital on 4.10.1999. On reaching the Police Station, the pistol was deposited by him (PW-11) with the MHC.
Man Singh SHO Police Station, Sadar, Hisar (PW-1) after completion of investigation of the case, prepared police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C which bears his signatures. The police report was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar on 12.2.2000. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar from persual of the report inter alia observed that the accused had prima facie committed offences punishable under Sections 307 and 356 IPC; besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act. Out of the said offences, the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The case was accordingly committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 20.04.2000.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was assigned charge sheeted the respondent on the allegations that he on Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 6- 29.09.1999 at 5.30 pm in the area of Urban Estate-II, Hisar fired a shot at Murti Devi with such intention and under such circumstances that if by the said act he had caused the death of Murti Devi, he would have been guilty of murder and he thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Secondly, on the same date, time and place, he assaulted Murti Devi while attempting to commit theft of her gold chain and snatched away her gold chain which she was wearing and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 356 IPC. The respondent was charge sheeted and directed to be tried by the said Court for the aforesaid offences. A separate charge-sheet was framed on 02.06.2000 on the allegations that on 04.10.1999, the respondent was found in conscious possession of a country made pistol without any permit or licence and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The respondent was chargesheeted and directed that he be tried by the said Court. The contents of the aforesaid charges were read over and explained to the respondent in simple Hindi.
The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 12 wintesses; besides, tendered documents in evidence including the FSL report (Ex.PF). The prosecution closed its evidence and the statement of the respondent in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which the substance of the evidence appearing against him was put to him. He took the defence that he was innocent. The complainant/injured, it is stated, had fabricated the injury and in connivance with the local police, she has got registered a false case. The injured and her husband, it is stated, were in the habit to file false complaints against him as well as other officers also. He Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 7- was falsely implicated in this case. The respondent did not lead any evidence in his defence.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence and material on record has acquitted the respondent.
The State of Haryana aggrieved against the acquittal of the respondent filed Criminal Miscellanoue No.A-571-MA of 2006 for grant of leave to appeal. This Court vide order dated 16.12.2002 granted leave to appeal and admitted the appeal; besides, issued bailable warrants of arrest against the respondent to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The respondent has appeared through his counsel Shri B. S. Siroha, Advocate.
Shri H. S. Deol, learned Addl. AG, Haryana appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that the learned trial Court gravely erred in acquitting the respondent for the offences under Section 356 and 307 IPC; besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act. It is submitted that the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court for acquitting the respondent are not tenable. The learned trial Court erred in observing that had the respondent intended to commit the murder of the complainant Murti Devi (PW-6) then due to previous enmity between the parties he would not have snatched her gold chain because such an act would be against human conduct. Besides, the learned trial Court, it is submitted, erred in holding that there was delay of six hours in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that the incident had occurred at 05.30 pm at the house of the complainant Murti Devi (PW-6) and the injured was taken to the General Hospital and medico legally examined at 05.45 pm on the date of the incident by Dr. Ajay Gupta, Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 8- Medical Officer (PW-9). The doctor (PW-9) sent a ruqa (Ex.PH) to the In Charge Police Post at 06.50 pm. Dharampal SI (PW-11) stated that he received a VT message at 10.30 pm and thereafter he immediately reached the hospital. Therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR is inconsequential and does not in any manner affect the prosecution case. It is submitted that the presence of Murti Devi complainant (PW-6) at the spot cannot be doubted as she had suffered a fire arm injury on her right tempro parital region. The learned trial Court erred in holding that it was doubtful if the injury could be caused by a fire arm. It is submitted that Dr. Ajay Gupta (PW-9) had specifically declared the injury to be a fire arm injury which is corroborated by the recovery of the country made pistol.
In response Shri B.S. Siroha, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the learned trial Court has recorded cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the respondent. It is submitted that the respondent was implicated due to old enimity and to settle scores with him. In fact Dharampal SI (PW-11) has given discrepant statements as regards the arrest of the accused and as regards the accused absconding from the hospital as also as regard the dates he went to Ant Ram Hospital. Besides, it is submitted that Dr. Ajay Gupta (PW-9) had categorically stated in his cross-examination that there was no blackening or tattooing; besides, no scorching. Moreover, there was no singing of hair and the injury was possible only with a high velocity missile. Besides, it is submitted that no blood stained earth was lifted. The clothes of the injured said to be smeared with the blood were not taken in possession which clearly go to falsify the prosecution case and the appeal of the State is liable to be dismissed. Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 9-
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the records of the case.
The prosecution case is based on the complaint (Ex.PA) of Murti Devi (PW-6). She while appearing in Court has reiterated the version as given by her in her statement (Ex.PA) before the police. It is stated that on 29.09.1999 at about 5.30 pm she was standing outside her house in the Urban Estate. Her husband Dharambir (PW-8) and her husband's younger brother ('devar') namely Satbir were present in the room of her house. Baljit (respondent) came on a scooter. He parked his scooter near his house and after that he came near her and snatched the gold chain which she was wearing. She raised an alarm and ran towards her house. She reached the courtyard of her house. Baljit (respondent) fired a shot at her which hit her on the right side of her head just above the ear. On hearing her alarm/voice, her husband Dharambir (PW-8) and her husband's younger brother ('devar') Satbir came there. On seeing them, Baljit (respondent) ran away on his scooter. Baljit (respondent) had caused injury to her because of their old enmity. Baljit (respondent) was already facing criminal trial in which her husband (Dharambir PW-8) was the complainant. In these cases Baljit (respondent) had fired shots upon her husband on two occasions. Murti Devi (PW-6) was taken to Civil Hospital, Hisar by her husband and her husband's younger brother where the police reached at night. Her statement (Ex.PA) was recorded which was readover to her. After admitting its contents to be true she signed the same. She was medico legally examined in the Hospital. The accused (respondent) fired at her because of the dispute Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 10- between their children and with the intention to kill her. Murti Devi (PW-6) was cross-examined by the defence. She was confronted with the discrepancies in her statement made in Court and her statement (Ex.PA) made before the police. It is stated by Murti Devi (PW-6) that she had got recorded in her statement (Ex.PA) that the accused parked his scooter in front of his house and thereafter came near her. She was confronted with her statement (Ex.PA) where it was not specifically recorded that the accused parked his scooter in front of his house and thereafter he came near her. It is further stated that she got recorded in her statement (Ex.PA) that the accused snatched a gold chain from her neck. She was confronted with her statement (Ex.PA) where word 'gold' was not recorded. She had got recorded in her statement (Ex.PA) that after snatching the chain she ran towards her house. She was confronted with her statement (Ex.PA) where it was not specifically recorded but it is recorded that she went in the courtyard of her house. It is also stated by her (PW-6) that she had got recorded in her statement (Ex.PA) that earlier accused Baljit (respondent) had fired twice on her husband and cases regarding those occurrences were pending. She was confronted with Ex.PA where it was not so recorded but it was recorded that cases were pending against the accused. She (PW-6) did not remember if she had got recorded in her statement (Ex.PA) that accused Baljit Singh (respondent) fired at her because of dispute between their children. It is also stated that they were living in their house in Urban Estate II, Hisar for the last 15-16 years. Baljit Singh (respondent) had started living in House No.726 in the Urban Estate, Hisar for the last 10-11 years. The house of Baljit (respondent) is situated in front of her house in Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 11- an oblique direction. She had got registered two criminal cases against Baljit (respondent). She did not know how many cases had been got registered by her husband against Baljit (respondent). She also did not know whether her husband had got registered any case against the accused Baljit (respondent). Pawan (PW-10) son of Satbir Singh was not a witness in any other case against Baljit (respondent). It was staed as incorrect that he was an eye-witness against Baljit (respondent) in a criminal case. She did not know whether Pawan (PW-10) was a witness against Satbir accused in 4-5 cases. She also did not know whether Satbir her 'devar', father of Pawan was a witness against accused Baljit in two criminal cases. She did not know whether her husband and her sons gave beating to accused Baljit (respondent) and had snatched cash amount from him and a criminal complaint was pending against her husband and her sons in Court.
Dharambir (PW-8) husband of the complainant Murti Devi (PW-6) has deposed on the same lines as his wife Murti Devi (PW-6) had deposed in her deposition. It is stated that on 29.09.1999, he and his brother Satbir were sitting in the back side of his house in the Urban Estate. At about 5.15 pm, they heard the voice of his wife Murti Devi (PW-6) saying 'mar diya mar diya'. Dharambir (PW-8) and his younger brother Satbir ran towards the outside gate of the house. When they reached at the door of his room situated on the front side of the house, he saw Baljit (respondent) had fired on his wife Murti Devi (PW-6), which hit on her head on the right side just above the ear. One pellet of the shot hit the arm of a cot which was in a standing position in his house. On seeing them, Baljit (respondent) ran away on his scooter. His wife Murti Devi (PW-6) told him that Baljit Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 12- (respondent) had snatched her chain. The respondent had fired on his wife due to old enmity and many cases were pending against the accused in which she was the complainant. Dharambir (PW-8) and his brother brought his wife to the Civil Hospital, Hisar. Baljit (respondent) had fired upon his wife with an intention to kill her. His statement was recorded by the police. Dharambir (PW-8) was cross-examined at considerable length. In cross- examination it is stated by Dharambir (PW-8) that he was serving in Haryana Roadways, Hisar Depot. Baljit (respondent) was a Government Teacher. It is stated as correct that he (PW-8) had got a case registered under Sections 285/506 IPC against Baljit (respondent) in Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. Regarding the same occurrence, he had filed a criminal complaint under Section 307 IPC against Baljit (respondent) which was pending in Court. He had got registered a criminal case against Baljit Singh (respondent) under Section 307 IPC on 12.7.1999 vide FIR No.412/1999 with the Police of Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar which was pending. His wife Murti Devi (PW-6) had got registered a criminal case against Baljit Singh (respondent) under Sections 323 and 324 IPC with Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. It was correct that Pawan (PW-10) and Raj Singh were witnesses in the criminal cases registered on the complaint of his wife (PW-
6). His son Ishwar Singh had got registered a criminal case under Section 324 IPC against Baljit (respondent). In the said case Pawan (PW-10) and Rajbir were eye-witnesses. In the case registered vide FIR No.412/1999 under Section 307 IPC, Pawan (PW-10) and Rajbir were witnesses. In the present case, the father of Pawan Kumar (PW-10) was a witness. He did not know whether Baljit Singh (respondent) had filed a criminal case against Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 13- him and his son in the Court of 'Illaqa' Magistrate, Hisar under Sections 392, 323 and 342 IPC. He also did not know whether Azad Singh son of Kedara and Ranbir Singh were eye-witnesses in the case. It was correct that there were many cases pending against the accused (respondent), registered on their complaint. He did not know whether on 21.8.2000 a complaint was filed by Rajbir Singh Sindhu who is witness in one case against Baljit (respondent) and on his application Baljit (respondent) was challaned under Sections 107 and 151 IPC (sic.- Cr.P.C). Dharambir (PW-8) was confronted with the discrepancies in his statement (Ex.DA) that was recorded by the police. It is also stated that on the day of the occurrence his brother (Satbir) came to his house at 4/4.30 p.m. No one was residing in the house of Baljit (respondent) on the day of occurrence. He did not know where the respondent was residing on the day of occurrence. The door of the house of the respondent it is stated is situated at a distance of about 40 feet from the gate of his house. It is stated that the door of his room which was in the front side was at a distance of 9/10 feet from the main gate. He reached the door of the room but had not come out. His wife (PW-6) received bullet injury and she was at a distance of 2-3 feet from the main gate towards the house. Baljit (respondent) was at a distance of 2 paces from the gate towards the road. The cot which was hit by a bullet was at a distance of 5/6 feet from his wife (Murti Devi). The accused (respondent) did not reload his pistol rather he on seeing them fled away. He did not try to chase the accused (respondent) because he became busy for carrying his wife.
Pawan (PW-10) stated that on 4.10.1999 he and his friend Narinder had come to the office of SDM, Hisar for getting a driving licence. Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 14- There Dharampal ASI and other police officials met him. Accused Baljit (respondent) was also present with them. He inquired from the police whether they had recovered the pistol from the accused or not. The Police replied that they had not recovered it so far. Then the police went to Police Station Civil Lines along with the accused Baljit (respondent). He also accompanied them. Dharampal ASI interrogated Baljit (respondent) in his presence. The latter made a disclosure statement (Ex.PJ) that he had concealed one country made pistol in his House No.432, Sector 15-A in a corner of the house beneath the bricks. He could get the same recovered. The statement was signed by him (PW-10) and Constable Chander Bhan. In pursuance of the statement (Ex.PJ), Baljit (respondent) got recovered a country made pistol from a corner of his house after lifting the bricks. A sketch (Ex.PA) of the pistol was prepared and made into a parcel with the seal of 'DS' and was taken in possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PL). The pistol was shown to the witness and it was the same pistol that was recovered from Baljit Singh (respondent) and was Ex.P1. In cross- examination it is stated that he had got recorded in his statement to the Police that he and his friend came to SDM Office in connection with driving licence and the Police along with the accused met him there. He was confronted with his statement (Ex.DB) where it was not so recorded. He had also got recorded in his statement (Ex.DB) that Baljit Singh (respondent) disclosed that he had concealed a country made pistol in his house in a corner under the bricks. The said fact is not so recorded but it is recorded that accused disclosed before the Police that he had concealed a pistol in his rented house. He stated that he had been cited as a witness Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 15- against Baljit Singh (respondent) in this case. He did not remember if he had been cited as a witness against Baljit (respondent) in a case under Sections 452, 506, 323 and 324 IPC. He did not remember if he had been cited as a witness along with Rajbir in a criminal case against Baljit (respondent) under Section 324 IPC registered at the instance of Ishwar Singh son of Dharambir at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. Similarly, he did not remember if he had been cited as a witness in the case under Sections 107/151 IPC (Sic.- Cr.P.C). He did not know if his father Satbir Singh had been cited as a witness against Baljit Singh (respondent) in a case under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. His father was a witness in the present case. The accused, it is stated, was interrogated at about 3.00 p.m. for about 15-20 minutes. The main gate of the house from where the pistol was got recovered at the instane of accused (respondent) opens towards the western side. He did not know how many rooms were there in the said house. He did not know the owner of the house. House of accused Baljit, it is stated, is situated just in front of the house of Dharambir (PW-8) in Urban Estate, Hisar. The family members of the accused (respondent) were present in the house when they reached there. The corner from where the accused (respondent) got the pistol recovered was situated on the rear side of the house. The accused lifted one brick at the time of effecting the recovery. It was buried in the earth by about 2/3 inches. No person from the nearby house was summoned at the spot. After recovery they straightaway came to the Police Station. He had signed the documents in the Police Station and had not signed any paper in the house from where the accused got recovered the pistol. After 30/45 mintues they returned to Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 16- the Police Station. It was incorrect that the accused/respondent had never made any disclosure statement in his presence nor he got recovered any pistol.
From the above evidence and in fact even from the statement (Ex.PA) of the complainant Murti Devi that was initially made before the police, it is quite evident that there had been several cases pending between the complainant side and the accused. Their houses were adjoining each other inasmuch as the house of the respondent is near the house of the complainant side. In fact Dharambir (PW-8) has stated that the door of the house of the accused (respondent) is situated at a distance of about 40 feet from the gate of his house. The learned trial Court also observed that the house of the accused was located just across the road opposite the house of the complainant and he was residing there for the last 10-11 years. The statement of Dharampal Sub Inspector (PW-11) is also to the effect that the respondent was residing in House No.432, Sector-15-A, Hisar. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-State that the learned trial Court erred in holding that the accused (respondent) who was known to the complainant and would not, therefore, snatch the chain of the complainant Murti Devi (PW-6) is not tenable. It may be noticed that the prosecution case is that Baljit (respondent) came on a scooter to the house of Murti Devi (complainant) (PW-6). He stopped his scooter and snatched the gold chain from her neck. However, there is no recovery of the chain from the possession of the respondent. Even otherwise the complainant Murti Devi in her intial statement (Ex.PA) made before the police only states that her chain was snatched and she does not state that her gold chain Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 17- was snatched by the respondent. In this regard she (PW-6) was got confronted even with her previous statement (Ex.PA). Besides, the learned trial Court observed that if the respondent had snatched and taken the gold chain of the complainant then the same would have been recovered from his possession. The fact that no chain was recovered makes the prosecution case regarding snatching of the chain of Murti Devi (PW-6) highly doubtful and in any case to be not established and disproved. The non-recovery of the chain indeed is a strong circumstance to show that the chain of the complainant (PW-6) had not been snatched by the respondent (Baljit).
The fact that Murti Devi (PW-6) expressed ignorance about the criminal cases got registered by her husband against the respondent, although she states that she had got two criminal cases registered against the respondent is also a circumstance to show that she was not giving full details and particulars of the other cases that were pending between the parties. Dharambir (PW-8) husband of the complainant Murti Devi (PW-6) stated that he got one case registered against the respondent at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar under Sections 285 and 506 IPC; besides, he filed one complaint under Section 307 IPC regarding the same occurrence. His son Ishwar had got registered a criminal case under Section 323 IPC against the accused respondent. Therefore, it was rightly observed by the learned trial Court that the respondent was known to the complainant side and there was previous enmity between them. In fact the complainant Murti Devi (PW-6) in her initial statement (Ex.PA) before the Police had also stated that they had old enmity with Baljit (respondent) and there were cases pending between them. In these circumstances, the observation of the learned trial Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 18- Court that it would not be believable that the respondent who was well- known to the complainant (PW-6) would snatch her gold chain because such act would be against human conduct. It is quite common that the act of chain snatching is normally done by those persons who are unknown to the victim and in case they are known, their action would be easily identifiable; besides, in case the chain had been snatched by the respondent, it would have been recovered from him. There is nothing wrong in the trial Court to hold that a person would not normally snatch a gold chain from a person to whom he is known.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-State that the learned trial Court erred in holding that there was delay of 6 hours in lodging the FIR is also devoid of merit. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the incident had occurred at 5.30 pm at the house of the complainant (PW-6). The injured was shifted to the General Hospital and was medico legally examined at 5.45 pm by Dr. Ajay Gupta (PW-9). The doctor sent a memo (ruqa) (Ex.PH) to the In Charge Police Post General Hospital, Hisar. According to Dr. Ajay Gupta (PW-9), the memo was sent at 6.50 pm. Dharampal Sub Inspector (PW-11), however, received a V.T. Message at 10.00 pm and thereafter he went to the hospital. It may be noticed that there is no explanation for the delay of the VT message being received by Dharampal SI (PW-11) at 10.30 pm especially when according to Dr. Ajay Gupta (PW-9), the ruqa had been sent by him to the In Charge Police Post General Hospital, Hisar at 6.50 pm. The said delay was liable to be explained by the prosecution which it has been failed to explain. Therefore, the conclusions recorded by the learned trial Court are quite Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 19- cogent and convincing.
Murti Devi (PW-6) injured is said to have suffered a fire arm injury. However, the fire arm injury on her is not clearly established. Dr. Ajay Gupta (PW-9) in his deposition states that on 29.09.1999 at 5.45 pm, he medico legally examined Murti Devi (PW-6) wife of Dharambir (PW-8). He found that she was conscious. Her pulse was 72 per minute and blood pressure was 140/90 mm and pupils were bi laterally equal and reacting. The following injury was found on her person :-
" A lacerated wound in right temporo parietal region. Horizontally placed 7.5 cm x .5 cm x scalp deep to partial scalp (sic. skull) deep. There was an abraided area on the edge of wound around posterior third of wound. The edges on posterior part of wound were inverted while anteriorly the margins were outwards"
Bleeding were present and hair were scanty in the region. X-ray of the skull was advised and injury was kept under observation. The duration of injury was within six hours and the weapon was declared as fire arm. The carbon copy of the MLR was Ex.PG. In cross- examination it is stated by Dr. Ajay Gupta, Medical Officer (PW-9) that the police did not obtain any opinion from him regarding nature of injury. As per description of the injury, the injury was superficial in nature. There was no underline damage. It is stated that if a fire arm is shot from a close distance then there would be blackening, scorching and tattooing on the side hit by the bullet. By short distance he meant that the shot fired less than 2-3 feet. If the shot was fired from a bullet having pellets then there would be some dispersion Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 20- of pellets. If the shot was fired from a distance of about 2 to 3 feet then the pellets enter as a bolous and then they spread. In this case, there was no blackening nor tattooing and no scorching. There was no singing of hair. This injury was possible only with the high velocity missile. He did not take any 'chunni' (veil) of the patient or hair in his possession. It was incorrect that the injury described could not be caused by oval or pointed object.
The prosecution case is that the respondent snatched the chain of Murti Devi (PW-6) and while she was going inside he fired at her. In case the chain is stated to be snatched then the respondent must have come very near to the complainant Murti Devi (PW-6). She in her cross-examination has stated that the accused (respondent) was 2/3 paces behind her when he fired the shot and that the pellets were lying on the ground when he fired the shot. Therefore, in case the respondent had indeed fired from that close range, then there would have been blackening, tattooing or scorching. However, in the injury, there is no blackening, tattooing or scorching which are factors, which indicate a fire arm injury from a close distance fire. The doctor also states that this injury was possible only with the high velocity missile. It may be noticed that there has been no recovery of any bullets or pellets from the injury suffered by Murti Devi complainant (PW-6) or from the place of occurrence even though the pellets were stated to be lying on the ground when Murti Devi (PW-6) received the injury. The doctor also states that this injury was possible only with a high velocity missile. The result of the FSL report (Ex.PF) is as follows:-
"1. The country made pistol marked W/1 (Chambered for 12 bore cartridges) is a firearm as defined in Arms Act 54 of 1959.Amit Khanchi
2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 21- Its firing mechanism was found in working order.
2.The countrymade pistol W/1 had been fired through. However, scientifically, the time of its last firing cannot be given.
Note: After examination, the exhibit was resealed alongwith its original wrapper with the seal of DD (Balli) FSL (H)."
A perusal of the above shows that the time of last firing of the weapon that had been recovered could not be given. The recovery of the gun is established from the respondent, however, the bullets fired from it are not connected with the injury suffered by Murti Devi complainant (PW-6). The time of the last fire of the gun could not be ascertained in terms of the said FSL report (Ex.PF). In fact the bullets that were fired have not been recovered. In the circumstances, it is indeed highly doubtful as to whether the complainant Murti Devi (PW-6) suffered the fire injury from the gun that was recovered from the respondent (Baljit), the sketch of which is Ex.PK. Dharampal SI (PW-11) states that no empty cartridge was found by him at the place of occurrence. The 'chunni' (veil) that the complainant Murti Devi (PW-6) stated in her cross-examination was tied on her injury was not taken in possession. The respondent is said to have made disclosure statement (Ex.PJ) on 4.10.1999 to the effect that the pistol that he had from which he fired on 12.07.1999 and 12.09.1999, he had concealed in a corner of his house No.432 Sector-15A which was on rent with him and except for him no one knew that he had concealed the pistol beneath the bricks and he could get the same recovered. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement (Ex.PJ) he got recovered a country made pistol, the Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 22- sketch of which is Ex.PK. The original vernacular of Ex.PJ on the trial Court record shows that the words and numbers "H.No.432" contain overwriting. Initially it appears that House No.726 was mentioned which is the house at Urban Estate II, Hisar which is mentioned by Murti Devi complainant (PW-6) in her initial statement (Ex.PA) before the Police. Thereafter, the prosecution realizing that the respondent had shifted his house, the address by overwriting on the original. The memo (Ex.PJ) is signed by Baljit (respondent) and is scribed by Dharampal SI (PW-11); besides, it is attested by Chander Bhan and Pawan Kumar (PW-10). Pawan Kumar (PW-10) in his deposition in Court stated that the accused led the police party to his house in Sector-15-A and got recovered a country made pistol from the corner of the house after lifting the bricks. Pawan Kumar (PW-10) was confronted with his statement (Ex.DB) that Baljit (respondent) had disclosed that he had kept concealed a country made pistol in House No.432 Sector-15A in the corner of his house beneath the bricks which was, however, not recorded in the statement (Ex.DB). Dharampal SI (PW-11) has also stated that the respondent was interrogated in the Court complex in the presence of Pawan Kumar (PW-10) and Chander Bhan Constable. Baljit (respondent) made a disclosure statement (Ex.PJ) that he had concealed a country made pistol in his House No.432 Sector 15 A in the North Eastern side of his house under the bricks and he could get the same recovered. In cross-examination it is stated by Dharampal SI (PW-11) that he did not join any public person except Pawan Kumar (PW-10); besides, it was incorrect that Baljit (respondent) had not signed the statement (Ex.PJ). It was also incorrect that he (PW-11) had forged the signature of Baljit (respondent) on Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 23- Ex.PJ to create a false evidence against him. Dharampal SI (PW-11) did not know who was the owner of the house from where the pistol was recovered nor he tried to know about this fact. The pistol (Ex.PA) was recovered from the front side of the house. The recovery of the country made pistol is also quite doubtful inasmuch as it is not explained as to in what connection was the pistol earlier used on 12.07.1999 as is said to have been stated by Baljit (respondent) in his disclosure statement (Ex.PJ) as the incident in the present case had occurred on 29.09.1999. Besides, the cutting on the address on the statement (Ex.PJ) from the house initially i.e. House No.726 Urban Estate II, Hisar to House No.432, Sector-15A, Hisar is also indicative of the fact that the disclosure statement had been recorded only to show recovery. Moreover, no cartridges or empty cartridges were admittedly recovered from the place of occurrence or from the place of recovery of the pistol. Therefore, the possibility of the complainant Murti Devi (PW-6) and her husband Dharambir (PW-8) implicating the respondent in another case cannot be ruled out.
In the circumstances it may be noticed:-
1. A person who is known to a victim would normally not snatch a chain from her neck for the fear of his being identified.
2. Murti Devi (PW-6) complainant in her statement (Ex.PA) before the Police states that a chain was snatched from her neck. However, in Court she improves the version by stating that a gold chain was snatched.
3. The injury on the person of Murti Devi (PW-6) on her head is not clearly established to be that from the pistol that was recovered, the Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 24- sketch of which is Ex.PK.
4. The FSL report (Ex.PF) and the opinion of the Dr. Ajay Kumar Gupta (PW-9) does not categorically spell out that the injury on the head of the Murti Devi (PW-6) was a fire arm injury as it is stated that there was no blackening, no tattooing no scorching; besides, there was no singing of the hair. It is stated that this injury was possible only with a high velocity missile. He also states that it was a superficial injury.
5. Murti Devi (PW-6) in her statement submits that Baljit (respondent) was residing at House No.726 Urban Estate II, Hisar in fact Baljit (respondent) was residing at House No.432 Sector-15A, Hisar. Even in the disclosure statement (Ex.PJ) there is overwriting of the address from House No.726 to House No.432 Sector 15A.
6. The recovery of weapon of offence is doubtful and in any case the recovered weapon does not connect with the injury which Murti Devi (PW-6) suffered on her head.
7. There were criminal cases between Dharambir (PW-8) husband of the complainant Murti Devi (PW-6) and respondent Bajit. Therefore, the possibility of registering another case by the complainant side cannot be ruled out.
8. There is no explanation for delay in registering the FIR by the prosecution as the medical memo (Ex.PH) was sent by Dr. Ajay Gupta (PW-9) to the Police Station at 6.50 pm. However, Dharampal SI (PW-11) received a VT message at 10.30 pm and then reached the General Hospital. The reason for the delay in receiving the VT message from 6.50 pm to 10.30 pm is not explained. Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 25-
9. Dharambir (PW-8) in his cross-examination deposed that after getting his wife (Murti Devi) admitted in the hospital, he went to Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar and brought the Police to the Civil Hospital. However, he also states that the police came to the hospital at their own. In case Dharambir (PW-8) had gone to the Police Station then there was no reason for the police not to record his statement.
10. Dharambir (PW-8) could not state the time when the police reached the civil hospital and as to when the statement of his wife (Murti Devi) was recorded. This he tries to explain away by stating that he was not at the hospital when the statement of his wife (PW-6) was recorded. However, in his further cross-examination, he states that he was present in the hospital. He states that he returned from the hospital after 11.00 pm. The investigating officer in fact mentioned the time of recording the statement of Murti Devi (PW-6) below his endorsement as 11.30 pm. This would indicate that Dharambir (PW-
8) was present.
11. 'Chunni' (veil) with which Murti Devi (PW-6) in her cross-
examination stated to have tied her injury was not recovered; besides, the blood stained clothes of Murti Devi (PW-6) were not recovered.
12. Dharambir (PW-8) states that one bullet hit the arm of the cot which was lying in the house and he lifted the bullet from the ground which was handedover to the Police. However, Dharampal SI (PW-11) states that neither any bullet was found at the place of occurrence nor Dharambir (PW-8) gave him any bullet. In fact no bullet was sent to Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.964-DBA of 2002 - 26- the FSL for its opinion.
13. Pawan Kumar (PW-10) is the son of Satbir who is the husband's younger brother of Murti Devi (PW-6). He is also a witness in a criminal case registered against the respondent. One case is registered against the respondent on the basis of complaint made by Ishwar. Pawan Kumar (PW-10) is a witness of disclosure statement (Ex.PJ) and recovery of the pistol.
14. There were several other cases filed by the complainant against Baljit (respondent) and the possibility of the present case being added so as to pressurize him cannot be entirely ruled out.
15. It is not shown as to for what purposes the pistol that is said to have been recovered in purusuance of disclosure statement (Ex.PJ) is stated to have been used was fired on 12.7.1999 when the present incident had occurred on 29.9.1999.
The learned trial Court has, therefore, recorded cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the respondent and even another view is not possible. Therefore, no ground is made out to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned trial Court.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(S.S. Saron) Judge (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge 10.05.2012 A.kaundal/amit Amit Khanchi 2013.09.03 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh