Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Harjit Singh And Others on 24 September, 2009
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 967-SBA of 2000
Date of decision: 24th September, 2009
State of Punjab
... Appellant
Versus
Harjit Singh and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: None.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Harjit Singh son of Gajjan Singh, Jaspal Singh son of Harjit Singh and Mohan Singh alias Jagmohan Singh son of Nirmal Singh were named as accused in case FIR No.46 dated 05.07.1997 registered at Police Station Dakha under Sections 379/324/325/323/34 IPC. They were tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Ludhiana. They were acquitted on 12th November, 1999. The impugned judgment of acquittal is subject matter of the present appeal preferred by the State of Punjab with a prayer that acquittal of the accused be set aside.
Pritam Singh son of Dalip Singh, resident of village Dakha lodged FIR Ex.PA/11. In the FIR, it was stated that he is an agriculturist. On 22nd June, 1997 at about 8.00 p.m. he was filling earth on the edges of his fields, when Harjit Singh son of his maternal uncle, along with Jaspal Singh and Mohan Singh came there and started beating him. Harjit Singh was armed with a Dang. He gave four Dang blows on the head, left eye and nose of Pritam Singh. Jaspal Singh was armed with Barcha and he Criminal Appeal No. 967-SBA of 2000 2 gave blow on the back of Pritam Singh, due to which he fell down. While he was lying fallen, Mohan Singh caused him injuries with a Toki in his hands on left shoulder, left and right arm, right eye and both left and right knees of Pritam Singh. It is alleged that they also took away gold ring, kara (bracelet) weighing 1.5 tola and currency notes worth Rs.15,235/-. It was stated in the FIR that while leaving, the accused left a threat that cash amount will be spent by them upon the injured complainant. Bachan Singh Subedar, who was attracted to the spot, raised alarm and brought the injured to the civil hospital. It was stated that the cause of grudge was civil litigation, in which Nirmal Singh and Gajjan Singh, maternal uncle of the injured were on one side, while complainant respondent on another side.
Occurrence, in the present case, has taken place on 22nd June, 1997 at about 8.00 p.m., whereas the statement of the injured was recorded on 25th June, 1997. To explain the delay, it was stated that even though, investigating officer had approached the injured on 23rd June, 1997 and 24th June, 1997, he was not mentally prepared to give statement. However, on the basis of statement, FIR was recorded on 5th July, 1997.
On 24th January, 1998, the accused were charged for various offences. Accused Mohan Singh was substantively charged under Section 325 IPC for causing grievous hurt to PW-1 Pritam Singh, whereas other accused were charged with the aid of section 34 IPC. Jaspal Singh was substantively charged under Section 324 IPC, whereas his co-accused Harjit Singh and Mohan Singh were charged with the aid of section 34 IPC. Harjit Singh and Mohan Singh were substantively charged for offences under Section 323 IPC, whereas Jaspal Singh was charged with Criminal Appeal No. 967-SBA of 2000 3 the aid of section 34 IPC. All the accused were also charged for offences under Section 379 IPC for theft of gold ring, gold bracelet and cash amounting to Rs.15,235/-. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Pritam Singh complainant injured appeared as PW-1 and reiterated the version given in the FIR. Bachan Singh appeared as PW-2 to corroborate the statement of PW-1 Pritam Singh.
Pritam Singh was medico-legally examined on 22nd June, 1997 at about 1.25 p.m. PW-3 Dr.U.S. Soodh, found 11 injuries on the person of injured PW-1 Pritam Singh. He had declared injury No.7 and 8 as grievous in nature. In cross-examination he admitted that injury No.1 and 2 were stitch wounds. Dr.Ashok Raswant, Radiologist appeared as PW-4 and proved x-ray report, Ex.PE.
ASI Mohinder Singh appeared as PW-5. He stated that on 25th June, 1997, he had gone to the hospital and had recorded the statement of Pritam Singh. He further stated that after inquiry, case was registered on 5th July, 1997. In cross-examination, he admitted that injured Pritam Singh met him on 23rd and 24th June, 1997 but he had refused to make statement on the ground that he was not mentally fit to make statement. He admitted that regarding this fact no written or oral opinion was sought from the Doctor. He further admitted that in the note appended to the Daily Diary Report No.18, regarding action taken by the police, he had noted that the complainant, for making the case serious, had given a false statement. ASI Jasmer Singh appeared as PW-6. He proved arrest of the accused. Head Constable Sukhdarshan Singh appeared as PW-7. He deposed that on 22nd June, 1997 he had gone to the civil hospital to record statement of Pritam Singh but he was declared Criminal Appeal No. 967-SBA of 2000 4 unfit to make statement. PW-8 Dr.R.K. Sharma, in his testimony, stated that on 22nd June, 1997 Pritam Singh was declared unfit to make statement, whereas on 23rd June, 1997 he was declared fit to make his statement.
Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They pleaded false implication due to civil litigation.
The trial Judge noticed the fact that Pritam Singh, in his cross-examination, has stated that after ½ hour of the occurrence, his son Sukhpal Singh arrived at the spot, but Pritam Singh had not disclosed him the facts regarding the occurrence. Trial Judge also took into consideration the fact that for three days, Pritam Singh had not made statement to the police, even though, he was declared fit to make statement on 23rd June, 1997.
Acquittal of the accused was recorded primarily on the ground that there was a delay in making statement to the police. The statement was made on the fourth day, even though, the injured Pritam Singh was declared fit to make statement earlier. This reason, according to the trial Court, had made the prosecution version suspicious. The trial Court further held that non-examination of SI Mohan Singh investigating officer is prejudicial to the accused, as a material witness has been withheld. The bald allegation regarding theft of gold ring, bracelet and cash was not believed by the trial Court, as no recovery was effected. In the present case, Pritam Singh had suffered 11 injuries. Except injuries No.7 and 8, which were on his left and right forearms, all injuries were declared simple.
The occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 22nd June, 1997 at about 1.25 p.m. On 22nd June, 1997, Pritam Singh injured Criminal Appeal No. 967-SBA of 2000 5 was declared unfit to make statement. However, on 23rd June, 1997 the doctor had declared Pritam Singh fit to make statement. On both the days, investigating officer approached him to give his version, but the injured Pritam Singh had not come forward to give his statement. Therefore, there was a delay in lodging of the FIR and same has not been explained satisfactorily. The delay will put the Court on caution, but in each case, it may not be fatal to the prosecution. Evaluation of the evidence of Pritam Singh PW-1 reveals that he had introduced a false version regarding theft of gold ring, bracelet and currency notes worth Rs.15,235/-. No corroboration was coming forward to this version. It has come in the evidence of the police officer, who recorded the statement of the accused which led to registration of FIR that he had recorded in the concluding portion of Daily Diary Report No.18, where police proceedings were recorded, that complainant had given a false version to make the offence serious. This is a case where spontaneous version was not coming forward. Furthermore, immediate opinion of the police officer, who had recorded the statement, had impeached the credibility of the witness. Therefore, implicit reliance cannot be placed upon the testimony of PW-1 Pritam Singh. PW-2 Bachan Singh, who was allegedly attracted at the spot and was an eye witness, had also not come forward to lodge the report to the police for a period of three days. It has surfaced in the cross- examination that he was having civil litigation with Nirmal Singh. Thus, in appeal against acquittal, it cannot be said that the view formulated by the trial Court was perverse or was not attracted on the facts of the case. The view taken by trial Court, being one view which is possible on facts of the case, is not required to be disturbed. Therefore, no case is made out to cause interference.
Criminal Appeal No. 967-SBA of 2000 6
Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 24, 2009 rps