Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnam Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 6 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001CRILJ561
Author: Bakhshish Kaur
Bench: Bakhshish Kaur
JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J.
1. Gurnam Singh, Jarnail Singh and Baldev Singhappellants aggrieved by the judgment dated 1-12-1987 preferred this appeal as they were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment under Sections 326/323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
2. The genesis of the occurrence is that on July 1, 1986, Mohinder Singh after making purchases from Raja Sansi was returning to his house. At about 7.00 p.m. when he reached on the pucca road leading to village Saidpur, Gurnam Singh, Jarnail Singh and Gian Singh, armed with kirpans and Baldev Singh armed with dang emerged from their house. Baldev Singh shouted that Mohinder Singh be caught hold and taught a lesson for helping Labh Singh in the land dispute. At this, Gurnam Singh inflicted kirpan blow hitting Mohinder Singh on the left side of his head. Jarnail Singh inflicted kirpan blow hitting on his forehead. Gurnam Singh inflicted another kirpan blow on the left arm of Mohinder Singh. Gian Singh inflicted kirpan blow to Mohinder Singh and in order to ward off the blow, he raised his right arm. Baldev Singh gave three dang blows to Mohinder Singh when he was lying on the ground. Charan Singh and Harjinder Singh were attracted to the spot on hearing the alarm raised by Mohinder Singh and he was rescued. Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the spot carrying with them their respective weapons.
3. The injured was immediately removed to S.G.T.B Hospital, Amritsar by Charan Singh, Harjinder Singh and Gurdeep Kaur wife of Mohinder Singh, where he was medically examined.
4. On the receipt of the wireless message from the guard In-charge. ASI Savinder Singh reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured on the basis of which case under Sections 307, 326, 323 read with 34, IPC was registered and the accused were tried for the offences complained of.
5. At the close of the prosecution evidence, which consisted as many as nine witnesses, the substance of accusation was put to the accused by the trial Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They had denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded their false implication. They had taken up a specific defence plea and to support it, led evidence in defence. The learned trial Court after disbelieving the defence plea taken up by the accused, but accepting the prosecution version as correct, had convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences charged with.
6. None has appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of the notice issued to their counsel. I have heard Mrs. Ravinder Kaur Nihalsinghwala, learned AAG, Punjab and also perused the record.
7. Did the appellants cause injuries in the manner stated by the prosecution witnesses, particularly Harjinder Singh (PW-5) and Charan Singh (PW-6)? In order to see to what extent they can be believed, it would be appropriate if the defence plea taken up by the accused, particularly Gurnam Singhappellant is reproduced as under :-
I am innocent. There was a dispute over water channel between Mohinder Singh and Manjit Singh on one side and Jasbir Singh, Ajmer Singh of our village on the other side and on account of them a fight took place between Jasbir Singh and Mohinder Singh etc. and as a result of that Jasbir Singh caused injuries on the person of Mohinder Singh in self-defence. We were implicated on the instance of S.P. Rajinder Singh, SP Detective, Amritsar who has got friendly ties with Labh Singh, as two sons of Labh Singh one of them is IPS and other is IAS. We had purchased land about 29 acres of Labh Singh and registered deed was executed and we were in possession of the land and for the remaining about 13 acres we had paid Rs. 2,16,000/- in advance and now Labh Singh is not executing the registered deed in our favour and that he is also trying to get back the said 9 acres of land for which he had executed a sale deed and in order to put pressure on us, we have been falsely implicated in this case. My brother Gian Singh was also detained by the SP Detective at A Division, Amritsar and there was raid of High Court and in that raid statement of my said brother was also recorded.
8. Now adverting to the statement of Labh Singh, (PW-7), specific questions were put to him regarding sale of the land by him in favour of the accused and there is a total denial on his part. He stated that he had not executed the sale deed in respect of 29 killas of land in favour of the accused nor he had received a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- as earnest money. When confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he stated that he had not made any statement before the police that he had sold land to the accused and that the dispute was regarding the remaining land. His attention was drawn to the portion A to A of Ex. DA wherein it is recorded that he had sold some land to Gurnam Singh son of Kartar Singh and there was dispute regarding other land which was pending in the Court. In view of his statement Ex. DA, it cannot be said that the plea taken up by the accused is totally false or a concocted one. He admits that he had good relations with Mohinder Singh, Ex-Sarpanch. He further admitted that one of his son is IAS and one is IPS. He did not know if his sons have relations with Rajinder Singh, SP Detective. The plea of the accused is that it is Labh Singh who has not executed the sale deed in his favour in respect of the remaining piece of land although he had received Rs. 2,16,000/- in advance and he is also trying to take back possession of land already sold in their favour and in order to put pressure upon them, they have been falsely implicated. His acquaintance with Mohinder Singh and that two of his sons are IPS and IAS, is admitted.
9. For a moment, leaving aside this part of the story regarding the part played by Labh Singh in order to put pressure on the accused, this case is also to be looked into from another angle, that is, whether investigation in this case was conducted in a fair and impartial manner?
10. Gurnam Singh accused had stated that there was dispute over water channel between Mohinder Singh and Manjit Singh on one side and Jasbir Singh, Ajmer Singh of their village on the other side and on account of that a fight took place between Jasbir Singh and Mohinder Singh and others and in that fight Jasbir Singh had caused injuries on the person of Mohinder Singh in selfdefence.
11. Gopal Singh Ghuman, DSP, (PW-1) in cross-examination stated that on 2-7-1986 a report was registered regarding the injuries received by Gurmej Kaur wife of Ajmer Singh and Jasbir Singh son of Ajmer Singh, resident of village Saidpur. He did not examine the witnesses cited by them. However, he had verified the facts alleged therein. He had also not recorded the statement of any witness under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whose houses were situated near the place of occurrence. If he had verified the investigation of this case on 14-8-1986 as stated by him, was not it imperative upon him to verify the facts in respect of a report registered on 2-7-1986 regarding the injuries received by Gurmej Kaur and Jasbir Singh. He had also not cared to record the statement of any of the witnesses whose houses are situated near the place of occurrence.
12. Harbhajan Lal, SI, (PW-2) had allegedly verified the investigation of the case which was done by Savinder Singh, ASI. In cross-examination, he stated that Jasbir Singh was joined in the investigation but he did not join those persons whose names were mentioned by Jasbir Singh in his report recorded on 2-7-1986 regarding injuries sustained by Jasbir Singh and his mother.
13. Harjinder Singh (PW-5) on whose statement the police was set into motion, had tried to conceal certain facts, particularly the presence of Jasbir Singh and his mother on the spot by saying that Jasbir Singh and his mother had not come to the place of occurrence but they had met them on the way later on. When confronted with the statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C., he admitted that he had stated before the police that the said persons, i.e., Jasbir Singh and his mother, came to the place of occurrence.
14. Harjinder Singh, (PW-5) is contradicted by Charan Singh (PW-6) who stated that none-else from the village had come to the place of occurrence. He has also shown ignorance by saying that he does not remember if Kuldip Singh was injured and in that case he appeared as a witness against the accused. He further deposed that accused Jarnail Singh was rival candidate in the election of Sarpanch and Jarnail Singh, had lost the election. He admitted that a complaint under Section 326, IPC is pending against him, Manjit Singh and Mohinder Singh deceased for causing injuries to Jasbir Singh and his mother Gurmej Kaur. Gurmej Kaur and Jasbir Singh had come to the place of occurrence after the occurrence.
15. Now coming to the medical evidence, the trial Court has disbelieved the medical evidence led in defence on the grounds that Mohinder Singh had received as many as seven injuries out of which four injuries were caused with sharp edged weapon and three with blunt weapon whereas Jasbir Singh, who was attacked by three persons had received only five injuries as stated by Dr. Jagjit Kaur (DW-1).' The medical evidence was also disbelieved on the ground that occurrence took place on 1-7-1986 and Jasbir Singh and Gurmej Kaur were examined on 2-7-1986 and that there is a possibility that injuries on the person of Jasbir Singh are self-suffered after Mohinder Singh got himself medically examined in the hospital in order to make it a counter case.
16. The presence of Jasbir Singh and Gurmej Kaur is admitted by the prosecution witnesses. They had also received injuries on their person on the same date, i.e. 1-7-1986. It is also in evidence that a report was lodged by Jasbir Singh regarding the occurrence and the injuries received by him.
17. Savinder Singh, ASI, (PW-8) admits in cross-examination that he received the Medico-Legal Report of Jasbir Singh and his mother on 2-7-1986. On that date, they were unfit to make the statement, therefore, he had recorded the statement of Jasbir Singh on 3-7-1986. He had also recorded the statement of Sukhbir Singh, brother of Jasbir Singh on 3-7-1986. Besides this, he had also recorded the statement of Gurmej Kaur, but he did not record the statement of any person whose houses are situated near the place of occurrence. Hence, there is a big question mark whether fair and impartial investigation was conducted?
18. Savinder Singh, ASI, the Investigating Officer apparently had not recorded the statement of any person of the locality whose houses are situated near the place of occurrence, as admitted by him. He had not taken any steps to verify the correctness of the report, or, the statement made by Jasbir Singh and Gurmej Kaur on 3-7-1986. Similarly, Gopal Singh Ghuman, DSP (PW-1) has stated in his cross-examination that he had not examined any witness though a report dated 2-7-1986 regarding the injuries received by Gurmej Kaur wife of Ajmer Singh and Jasbir Singh son of Ajmer Singh, was recorded. Harbhajan Lal (PW-2) had also not cared to join the persons whose names were mentioned by Jasbir Singh. All these facts lead to one conclusion that the investigation in this case was one sided. It was partial and biased. The prosecution has not come with the true version and the result is that the assailants, who allegedly caused injuries to the injured, have to go unpunished. But, if the prosecution does not choose to put forward the true version, it is itself to be blamed for the failure of the case. It is obvious that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and, thus, not presented the true version. The eyewitnesses have also not given the correct account of occurrence. They have admitted the presence of Jasbir Singh and Gurmej Kaur. What was the occasion for Jasbir Singh and Gurmej Kaur to be present at the place of occurrence and then suffer injuries and that too at whose hands. All these questions remained unanswered.
19. All these facts taken into consideration coupled with the specific defence plea taken up by the accused, which is supported by evidence, it can be safely concluded that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner stated by the prosecution and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Suspicion how strong would not take place of proof.
20. The Apex Court has laid emphasis that effort should be made to find the truth, this is the very object for which Courts are created. In Mohan Singh v. State of M.P., 1999 SCC (Cri) 261 : (1999 Cri LJ 1334), it has been held as under :-
To search it out, the Courts have been removing the chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust as all these things clog the very truth. So long as chaff, cloud and dust remain, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So, it is a solemn duty of the Courts not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court, within permissible limit, to find out the truth. It means on the one hand that no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see that no person committing an offence should go scot-free. If in spite of such effort, suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused. For this, one has to comprehend the totality of the facts and the circumstances as spelled out through the evidence, depending on the facts of each case by testing the credibility of eye-witnesses including the medical evidence, of course, after excluding those parts of the evidence which are vague and uncertain. There is no mathematical formula through which the truthfulness of a prosecution or a defence case could be concretised. It would depend on the evidence of each case including the manner of deposition and his demeanour, clarity, corroboration of witnesses and overall, the conscience of a Judge evoked by the evidence on record. So Courts have to proceed further and make genuine efforts within the judicial sphere to search out the truth and not stop at the threshold of creation of doubt to confer benefit of doubt.
21. Gurnam Singh accused had pleaded that they had purchased 29 acres of land from Labh Singh and registered deed was executed. They were in possession of another piece of land and they had paid Rs. 2,16,000/- in advance and that now Labh Singh is not executing the sale deed in their favour. In fact, he is trying to get back the possession of land in respect of which he had already executed a sale deed in their favour. Although, this fact is denied by Labh Singh in his cross-examination yet he was confronted with his statement Ex. DA under Section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein it was recorded at portion A to A that he-had sold land to Gurnam Singh son of Kartar Singh and there was dispute regarding other land which was pending in the Court. In the state of affairs, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution has been able to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused are the perpetrator of the crime.
22. I, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants and acquit them of the charges levelled against them.
23. The appeal is allowed.