Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Maghar Singh And Others on 27 October, 2009
Criminal Appeal No.2620-SBA of 2006 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Criminal Appeal No.2620-SBA of 2006
Date of Decision:27.10.2009
State of Punjab
.....Appellant
Vs.
Maghar Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
None for the respondents.
****
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
This appeal is directed by the State of Punjab against the judgment dated 12.12.2005 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala whereby he acquitted the accused Maghar Singh, Ajaib Singh, Darshan Singh and Nirmal Singh.
Shortly put, the facts of the prosecution case are that Bhola Singh son of Sardara Singh resident of Village Bhaini Fatta made statement before ASI Baljit Singh in Civil Hospital, Dhanaula in the terms that he being bachelor was residing with his brother. He had taken his crop to the `Dana Mandi' (Grain Market) for selling. On 5.10.2003 around 8:00 P.M., he was sitting on the heap of his paddy crop. When his brother Gurjant Singh came, he was made to leave for having his dinner. When he neared the shed of `Dana Mandi' (Grain Market), he saw accused Maghar Singh Criminal Appeal No.2620-SBA of 2006 -2- empty handed along with his sons accused Ajaib Singh, Darshan Singh and Nirmal Singh armed with soti each. On catching his sight, Maghar Singh accused raised lalkara exhorting his co-accused that he (Bhola Singh) should not be allowed to escape and be taught a lesson for instituting a case against them. Ajaib Singh delivered soti blow, which landed on his head. Darshan Singh accused also gave soti blow, which rested on his head. He raised alarm of `Na Maro Na Maro' (Do not kill, Do not kill) and he fell down on the ground. When he lay fallen as such, his brother Gurjant Singh rushed to the spot to save him. In the meanwhile, accused Nirmal Singh gave two repeated blows with his soti on his (Bhola Singh) left arm. Ajaib Signh also gave a soti blow which fell on his right arm. Thereafter, all the accused decamped from the accused with their respective weapons. He was removed to Civil Hospital Dhanaula, where he was medico legally examined. In due course, the accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for their trial.
The accused were charged under Sections 308, 506, 341, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Gian Chand, PW2 Bhola Singh injured, PW3 Gurjant Singh, PW4 HC Randhir Singh, PW5 HC Gurjit Singh, PW6 Jaswinder Singh, PW7 ASI Baljit Singh Investigator and closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence. Maghar Singh came up with the plea that "I am innocent. Bhola Singh was roaming in the Mandi in drunken condition. People took him to his house where Sewak Singh out of fit of rage gave Criminal Appeal No.2620-SBA of 2006 -3- Tangli blow to Bhola Singh. On 06.10.2003 Panchayat consisting of Hari Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, Sukhjit Singh Lambardar and Nazar Singh Panch alongwith some other respectables went to P.S. Dhanaula where police officials told them that no case is going to be registered as they are not at fault, but later on, ASI Baljit Singh in connivance with complainant party lodged this false case against me and other accused." His co-accused adopted similar plea. In their defence, they have examined Mal Singh DW1, Hari Singh DW2 and closed their evidence by tendering the certified copies of the orders Ex.DC, Ex.DD and Ex.DE.
After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused of the charged offences as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with their acquittal, the State of Punjab has preferred this appeal.
This case was adjourned from time to time for arguments, but none had been putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents despite the fact that this matter for hearing was also displayed on the net. However, I have heard the learned State Counsel appearing for the appellant besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
On behalf of the appellant, it has been strenuously urged that on evaluating the ocular evidence as well as medical evidence tendered by Dr. Gian Chand PW1, it transpires that the charged offences have been substantiated, but nonetheless, the learned trial Court has acquitted all the accused. I regret my inability to be one with the learned counsel for the appellant for the discussion to follow hereunder.
Bhola Singh PW2 has solemnly affirmed in his cross-
Criminal Appeal No.2620-SBA of 2006 -4-examination "the place of occurrence is out of Mandi premises adjoining the road." whereas the cross-examination of Baljit Singh ASI PW7 investigator runs counter to it as he has stated in clear and unambiguous terms that "It is correct that the place of occurrence is in Anaj Mandi and where the entire area is brick lined. It is correct that I had not mentioned in site plan Ex.PN that the place of occurrence is a katcha place." Thus, palpably both these PWs are discrepant and contradict each other with regards to the place of occurrence. Thus to say the least of it, the genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed. Where it is so, it would be going too far to believe the prosecution version. It is also in the cross-examination of the Investigator that "It is correct that the dangs produced in the Court are ordinary dangs and do not bear any blood stain and such like dangs are easily available in the market. It is correct that one of the dangs Ex.P3 is a new dang." The occurrence is stated to have taken place on 5.10.2003 though this witness was examined on 30.5.2005. During this interregnum of one and half years, dust etc. would have certainly stuck on Ex.P3. By no stretch of speculation, it would have remained new one. This gives an inkling that this dang has been planted. As regards other dangs, the same as emerges out of the above extracted evidence too did not bear the blood stains. To add further to it, Dr. Gian Chand PW1 has testified in his cross-examination that no weapon was shown to me by the police. Had these weapons of offence been in existence, by all probabilities, the same would have been shown to this Doctor to obtain his opinion as to whether or not the stated injuries could be the result of the same. A meticulous perusal of the medical evidence tendered by this Doctor would reveal that the weapons of offence were not shown to him even in the Court though as a rule of thumb, the Doctor ought Criminal Appeal No.2620-SBA of 2006 -5- to be confronted with the weapon of offence to ascertain as to whether the given injuries could be possible with such weapon.
Bhola Singh PW2 went on to say that "I cannot tell age of accused Maghar Singh. He is about 80-85 years of age. He bears spectacles. He is fit and fine and walks without a support. It is incorrect to suggest that he walks with the aid of a support. When my brother arrived at the spot, the accused ran away. The accused did not try to give injury to my brother. I cannot tell in which direction the accused ran away. My brother Gurjant Singh had actively participated in saving me from the clutches of accused. But he did not receive any injury. Our dispute had started from the dispute over Watt and thereafter over Pahi. Both the disputes were prior to the present occurrence." In my estimation, the accused Maghar Singh being octogenarian might have been wearing spectacles and he would have been hardly hale and hearty and unable to move about without the aid of a walking stick. On this aspect, seemingly Bhola Singh has told a lie. If his brother Gurjant Singh had actively participated in the occurrence, he in the normal course of events, was bound to receive injuries though according to the above-extracted evidence, he did not sustain any injury at the hands of the accused persons. This apart, it emerges from the above evidence that the parties were at logger heads over watt (ridge) as well as pahi (common passage). Thus, it gives an inkling that the complainant party was inimically disposed towards the accused party. So the possibility of the former to falsely implicate the latter in this case also cannot be ruled out.
It is in the cross-examination of Gurjant Singh PW3 "It is correct that in the previous occurrence, the accused party as well as ourselves are accused in counter versions. When I was coming to replace Criminal Appeal No.2620-SBA of 2006 -6- my brother at the Mandi I had seen the accused standing near the shed. The accused did not say anything to me." If the accused party was bent upon to open attack upon the complainant party, by all probabilities, the former would have pounced upon Gurjant Singh finding him alone. It is in the cross-examination of Gurjant Singh (sic.) that "At the time of occurrence, injured was not having any headgear." If it is so, Bhola Singh PW would have not sustained mere lacerated wounds/ contusions/ abrasions. As per medical evidence tendered by Dr. Gian Chand (sic.), all the injuries were declared simple in nature. If head injuries were caused with dangs, when Bhola Singh was bare headed, in the normal course, he was bound to suffer some fracture, which is not there. Thus, there appears to be divergence between the medical as well as ocular evidence. The Investigating Officer lets the cat out of bag by stating in his cross-examination that "I did not come to know on 5.10.2003, the place where the occurrence has taken place. Volunteered this act was not mentioned even in the ruqa." If the occurrence had verily occurred, the place thereof was bound to find mention in the ruqa. Strangely enough that the Investigating Officer remained non- cognizant of such place, which further cast a cloak of suspicion over the genuineness of the prosecution version.
As a sequel of the above discussion, the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court warrants no interference. Sequelly, this appeal is dismissed.
October 27, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No