Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satvir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 October, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Misc.No.M- 31833 of 2012 1
Crl.Rev.No.1361 of 2012
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 16.10.2012
Crl.Misc.No.M- 31833 of 2012
Satvir Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
Crl.Rev.No.1361 of 2012
Satvir Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
Vide the above petitions, petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 8.11.2011, whereby the impugned judgment dated 27.5.2010, acquitting accused Balwinder Singh and Avtar Singh of the charges framed against them, was upheld and the order dated 8.10.2010, whereby application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short Cr.P.C.) for summoning additional accused to face the trial, was dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petitions deserve to be dismissed.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 4.2.2002 at about 9 A.M., complainant along with Nirmal Singh and Avtar Singh had Crl.Misc.No.M- 31833 of 2012 2 Crl.Rev.No.1361 of 2012 returned to their village. They came to know that Shivtar Singh had sufferred injuries in an accident caused by Avtar Mohd. At about 10.00 A.M. Pakhar Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Shingara Singh, Mandeep Singh, Surraj Mohd. And Guri Pehlwan entered the house of the complainant armed with lathis and gandasis. At the request made by the mother of the complainant, the said persons left the spot.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against Balwinder Singh and Avtar Singh. During the pendency of the trial, prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning Pakhar Singh and others as additional accused to face the trial. Vide order dated 8.2.2010, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the trial Court.
Vide judgment dated 27.5.2010, accused Balwinder Singh and Avtar Singh were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Trial Court, while acquitting accused Balwinder Singh and Avtar Singh, in para 14 of its judgment, has held as under:-
" 1 have heard the rival submissions and is of the opinion that in the instant case investigation by the police is not up to the mark. Firstly 3/4 different instances have been joint together and it was almost not clear for which offence accused have been charged. FIR related to the alleged incident which occurred at 10.00 A.M in which Crl.Misc.No.M- 31833 of 2012 3 Crl.Rev.No.1361 of 2012 appearing accused has not been named, whereas evidence about the incident actually happening for the event which allegedly occurred after the completion of function/rally at around 1.00 P.M. In any case even if this mis-joinder and improper joining of incident is ignored from the evidence on record, it is not sufficient and conclusive to hold guilty for the alleged offences. PW1 Satvir Singh had stated about the incident that at around 10.00 A.M Pakhar Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Shingara Singh, Mandeep Singh, Suraj Mohammad, Gurpreet Guri Bhalwan etc. came at his residence and raised lalkara and entered his house. In the crowd of 25/30 persons Balwinder Singh and Avtar Singh were also present but careful perusal of all the documents reveals that name of Balwinder Singh and Avtar singh being member of attackers came for the first time in the court evidence and not before. Cross-examination of this witness reveals that Balwinder Singh and avtar singh accused belongs to his village and they are known to Satvir Singh since childhood. In case this witness was having so much acquaintance with these persons it is difficult to understand why he had not named Balwinder Singh and Avtar Singh in first statement made to the police. No explanation for the same has been given. Witness also admitted that he had not named Avtar Singh and Crl.Misc.No.M- 31833 of 2012 4 Crl.Rev.No.1361 of 2012 Balwinder Siongh in the statement to the police. This court feels that witness had made improvement and his evidence is not believable more particularly when admittedly both the factions belonged to different political parties and have different political affiliation. It was also said by PW2 Nirmal Singh that in the village there is political factionalism. There is no corroborative evidence to the incident occurred at around 10.00 A.M when allegedly house of Satvir Singh was attacked. Statement of PW2 Nirmal Singh as to the incident is not believable as Nirmal Singh had not named these persons in his statement . Regarding the other incident at around 1 to 1- 1/2 P.M, no doubt Nirmal Singh had named Balwinder Singh and Avtar Singh in his statement but that evidence also does not inspire confidence. As per the police investigation Nirmal Singh was sitting in his court yard and Jaswinder Kaur, Paramjit Kaur, Bhinder Kaur were also sitting where Balwinder Singh, Avtar Singh etc. attacked him. Many persons also came with sticks which include Nachattar Singh. He raised cry for help and those ladies present rescued him from the attackers. But in his examination-in-chief PW2 Nirmal Singh stated that he was rescued by Kashmira Singh and Mukhtiar Singh which is big contradiction, which cannot be ignored. At least this person could easily differentiate between a male Crl.Misc.No.M- 31833 of 2012 5 Crl.Rev.No.1361 of 2012 and female. Cross-examination of this Nirmal Singh also shows that witness cannot be believed. He had done a Technical Course from Cochin but failed to tell from which year was done and failed to tell the name of College which he studied for one year which is also unbelievable and it shows that witness tried to conceal something from the court. Ex.PW2/A also does not contained that Balwinder Singh and Avtar Singh caught hold him from hair regarding which improvement seems to have been made in examination-in-chief. Admittedly, police had told him about the statement. Witness also admitted that there is factionalism in the village. He belongs to Akali party whereas other party belongs to Congress. Medical corroboration in the instant case is not corroboration at all. Injuries are too small to have any impact. Moreover statement of the police U/S 161 Cr.P.C. also shows some cutting as to the timing in the incident which creates doubt to the whole prosecution story. Question of double jeopardy is also involved. It was held by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Surinder Kaur v/s Rajinder Singh 862 RCR (criminal) 1999) that where challan u/s 107/151 presented and accused discharged then separate criminal complaint cannot sustain. In the instant case also proceedings U/S 107/151 Cr.P.C were also started and present case accordingly should not have continued. Crl.Misc.No.M- 31833 of 2012 6 Crl.Rev.No.1361 of 2012 Most importantly about 12 persons were named but 10 persons have been left out by the police without any explanation. General version that they were found innocent cannot be accepted more importantly when the witnesses are deposing against other persons also. Pick and choose policy of two persons cannot be made. Entire sequence of events make prosecution case doubtful and it shall not be safe to convict the accused. Accused are accordingly acquitted of the charge framed against them."
Thereafter, appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 8.11.2011. Learned Appellate Court, in para 12 of its judgment, has observed as under:-
"In the present case, even if the contention of Ld. counsel for appellant-complainant regarding the bar of Section 300 Cr.P.C being not applicable, as held by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib is accepted, the fact remains that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is wholly insufficient to foist any liability on the respondents. The respondents in the present case have been charged for having caused simple hurt to complainant Satvir Singh and for having wrongly restrained him and criminally threatening the complainant However, the examination in chief of complainant Satvir Singh PW-1 would reveal that he has confined his statement to an occurrence dated 4.2.2002 at 10 AM Crl.Misc.No.M- 31833 of 2012 7 Crl.Rev.No.1361 of 2012 when Pakhar Singh, Suhwinder Singh, Shingara Singh, Mandeep Singh, Surraj Modh and Gurpeet Guri Pehlwan had entered his house and and had returned on the entreaties made by Surjit Kaur, mother of complainant . The present accused Balwinder Singh and Avtar Singh have been named lateron as being members of the said assembly. However, there is absolutely no allegation of any hurt having been caused to Satvir Singh by the respondents or of any wrongful restraint of complainant by these respondents. In his cross examination complainant has admitted that he did not give names of Balwinder Singh and Avtar Singh in his statement before the police despite the fact that both the persons were known to him since childhood. The very examination in chief of complainant, thus, does not bring out any case against the respondent. Similarly whereas PW-2 Nirmal Singh has deposed about the accused present in the court namely Balwinder Singh and Avtar Singh having abused him at about 1.30 PM, in his cross examination he further testified to the effect that the police recorded his statement twice, first in the house of Satvir Singh at 10 AM and second time in Civil Hospital, Amloh in the evening. He also admits that he did not name the present respondents in his statement recorded by the police as Ex.PW2/A. He also admits the fact that respondents Crl.Misc.No.M- 31833 of 2012 8 Crl.Rev.No.1361 of 2012 belong to Congress party whereas complainant Satvir Singh owes allegiance to Akali Party. Even the MLR of Nirmal Singh Ex.PW4/A shows that the injured was examined at 7.15 PM and was brought to the Civil Hospital by Ashok Kumar, Head Constable thereby showing a delay of more than six hours between the attack and the medical examination of the witness which delay has not been explained by the witness, despite the fact that as per the witness he was immediately rushed to the hospital by his neighbours Kashmir Singh and Mukhtiar Singh. Thus the very nature of evidence which has come on record is shaky having no connection with the charge framed against the respondents. The Ld.Trial Court had rightly found the evidence unworthy of belief more particularly when there is no cohesiveness in the statement of both the witnesses regarding the occurrence and when none of the respondents have been named as assailants by either Satvir Singh or Nirmal Singh. There is, thus, no infirmity in the judgment passed by the Ld.Trial Court . The appeal is, accordingly dismissed."
The courts below have carefully gone through the evidence led by the prosecution and rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution story was doubtful. There was delay between the attack and medical examination of injured Nirmal Singh, which had not been properly explained by the prosecution. Names of Crl.Misc.No.M- 31833 of 2012 9 Crl.Rev.No.1361 of 2012 Balwinder Singh and Avtar Singh had not been mentioned by the petitioner when his statements were recorded during investigation.
A perusal of the FIR reveals that all the accused had entered the house of the complainant but had left his house on the request made by his mother. In these circumstances, learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. Hence, the accused, who had faced the trial, had been rightly acquitted and the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused to face the trial, had been rightly dismissed. No ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Accordingly, both the petitioners are dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE October 16, 2012 anita