Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bachan Singh S/O Mishar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 May, 2013
CRA No. S-727-SB of 2000 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. S-727-SB of 2000
Decided on : 17th May, 2013
Bachan Singh s/o Mishar Singh, resident of Chakarwal Jhugge, Tehsil
Fazilka, District Ferozepur.
.....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. P. BANGARH
*****
Present: Ms. Asha Thakur, Advocate, Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Mr. PPS Thethi, Addl. AG, Punjab for the respondent.
***** S.P. BANGARH, J The case of the prosecution is that on 11.04.1997, Balkar Singh ASI alongwith other police officials was present at bus stand of village Khui Khera in connection with patrol duty where Amro Bai-complainant came and got recorded her statement on the following facts:
She is resident of village Niollan and previously she was married with Balwant Singh son of Munsha Singh resident of village Hasta Kalan about 10 years ago and one child, namely, Sonu was born out of that wedlock. Now the age of Sonu is 7 years. She lived with Balwant Singh as his wife for about 5 years. Thereafter, they left each other and Sonu was kept by Balwant Singh. Her father Iqbal Singh had died about 20 years ago. Her mother Vidya Bai remarried her with Bachan Singh (appellant) about 3 years ago, who was already married with Harjito Bai daughter of CRA No. S-727-SB of 2000 -2- Sajan Singh of Ludhiana. Appellant has got constructed a house for his first wife. He had taken a room for her (Amro Dai-complainant) on rent in Geeta Bhawan street at Fazilka. Sometimes, he (appellant) used to stay at night with the her (Amro Bai-complainant) and sometimes, he (appellant) used to go to stay at night with his first wife (Harjito Bai).
Appellant used to hate her and he did not want to keep her as wife. On 30.03.1997, appellant asked her (Amro Bai-complainant) that they have to go to the house of Ajit Singh Lamberdar at village Patrianwala to attend bhog ceremony being performed on account of death of someone. They left for village Patrianwala at about 4.00 am on their moped. When they reached at the culvert in the area of village Jandwala Miran Sangla, at about 5.45 am, appellant stopped moped on the culvert and started beating her and later, threw her in the running water of the canal and, thereby, put her life in danger. She was washed in the running water for some distance and then she caught some plants grown on one side of the canal and came out of the canal. Thereafter, she went to the house of Nazar Singh resident of village Jandwala Miran Sangla from where Nazar Singh sent Bihari Lal Chowkidar to her natal place to bring her mother Vidya Bai, who later took her to village Niolan. Efforts to effect compromise continued uptil 11.04.1997, but when the compromise could not materialise, then she made a statement (supra) Ex.P2 that was recorded by Balkar Singh ASI, who put his endorsement Ex.P2/A, thereon, and sent the same to the police station, where formal FIR Ex.P2/B was recorded by Ram Saroop MHC. Thereafter, Balkar Singh ASI visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex.P3, thereof.
On 20.05.1997, Surjit Singh son of Gurdit Singh of village Patrianwala produced the appellant before Parsan Singh ASI, who arrested the appellant and moped was seized vide memo Ex.P4 alongwith receipt CRA No. S-727-SB of 2000 -3- Ex.P5.
After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of Police Station Khuian Sarwar instituted police report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C-for short) against the appellant before the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that it appeared that the appeallant had committed offences punishable under Sections 336 and 307 IPC.
On presentation of police report, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to the appellant and the case was later committed to the Court of Session, where charge under Section 307 IPC was framed against the appellant, whereto, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence, was summoned.
At the trial, the prosecution examined Jawahar Lal as PW-1, Amro Bai-complainant as PW-2, Vidya Bai as PW-3, Balkar Singh ASI as PW-4 and Parsan Singh ASI as PW-5 and closed the prosecution evidence, later.
After the closure of prosecution evidence, appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, he denied the allegations of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in this case.
Appellant gave his own version that Amro Bai-complainant (PW-2) got registered this false case against him at the instance of her mother Vidya Bai (PW-3) and he had never visited village Jandwala Miran Sangla. He also stated that he neither knew Jit Singh Lamberdar nor Jit Singh had ever come to his house.
Appellant was called upon to enter in defence, but he closed the same without examining any witness in his defence.
After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment of conviction held the appellant guilty for commission CRA No. S-727-SB of 2000 -4- of offence punishable under Section 336 IPC by concluding that the case does not fall under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 months for commission of offence punishable under Section 336 IPC vide impugned order of sentence. Aggrieved, thereagainst, the appellant, who was accused before the learned trial Court has come up in this appeal with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for his acquittal of offence punishable under Section 336 IPC.
Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent have been heard and record of the learned trial Court perused with their assistance.
Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant contended that there was un-explained delay in lodging the FIR and, therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR made the prosecution version utterly doubtful and the learned trial Court should have considered this point of delay in lodging the FIR and on the basis, thereof, benefit of doubt should have been accorded to the appellant. She also contended that Vidya Bai (PW-3) mother of the complainant-Amro Bai (PW-2) was not present at the time of occurrence, therefore, her testimony could not be used for the purpose of corroboration of evidence of her daughter Amro Bai-complainant (PW-2).
She also contended that a quarrel between husband and wife has been blown out of proportion that is why learned trial Court did not find the appellant guilty of commission of offence punishable under Sectin 307 IPC. So, she contended that no offence under Section 336 IPC is made out against the appellant and, therefore, he may be accorded the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 336 IPC.
On the other hand learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent contended that no motive can be ascribed to the complainant- Amro Bai (PW-2) to implicate her husband falsely in this case. He also CRA No. S-727-SB of 2000 -5- contended that her sole testimony is believable and more so, she narrated the incident to her mother Vidya Bai, who also appeared as PW-3 and, therefore, her evidence was rightly relied upon by the learned trial Court.
It may be noticed that moped, whereon, appellant and his wife Amro Bai-complainant (PW-2) were travelling was sold by Jawahar Lal (PW-1) to the appellant for a sum of `10,530/-. Jawahar Lal (PW-1) also proved the bill Ex.P1 issued by him in favour of the appellant. So, in this view of the testimony of Jawahar Lal (PW-1), it must follow that moped belonged to the appellant. Amro Bai-complainant (PW-2) supported the prosecution version in its entirety, as has been reproduced in the earlier parts of this judgment. She narrated the incident to her mother Vidya Bai (PW-3), who, too, corroborated her testimony, that she was told by Amro Bai-complainant (PW-2) that the appellant had thrown her in the canal on 30.03.1997. Balkar Singh ASI (PW-4) investigated the case and Parsan Singh ASI (PW-5) arrested the appellant on 20.05.1997.
There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Amro Bai- complainant (PW-2). She in candid words testified before the learned trial Court that she was thrown into the running canal water and she saved herself by catching the plants grown on the bank of the canal. She was subjected to searching cross-examination by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned trial Court, but long cross-examination failed to elicit anything worth the name, which could possibly cause any dent in her testimony. No motive can be ascribed to her to testify falsely in this case. She narrated the incident to her mother Vidya Bai (PW-3), who also corroborated her version.
The delay in lodging the FIR cannot be held to be fatal in this case, as according to the statement of Vidya Bai (PW-3), the CRA No. S-727-SB of 2000 -6- appellant had been sending some person for effecting the compromise and when compromise could not take place, then the FIR was got lodged. So, this delay in lodging the FIR has been explained that cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution case.
The learned trial Court rightly concluded that the case against the appellant does not fall under Section 307 IPC, while on the contrary the same falls under Section 336 IPC, as the act of the appellant had endangered the life and personal safety of Amro Bai- complainant (PW-2). Therefore, it was a rash act on the part of the appellant and he endangered the life and personal safety of his wife Amro Bai (PW-2) by throwing her in the running canal water.
There is, thus, no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of conviction, that is upheld and affirmed.
Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant then contended that the latter, has already undergone the agony of the trial since the date of registration of the FIR, that was registered on 11.04.1997 and thus, facing of the agony of the trial would have brought tremendous mutation in his behaviour towards fellow denizens and his wife Amro Bai (PW-2).
There is verity in the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Since the appellant has already undergone the agony of the trial for more than a decade, the ends of justice can be met in this case, if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail. It may be mentioned here that as per the custody certificate that has been filed in Court today, the appellant has already undergone 28 days actual imprisonment, after the CRA No. S-727-SB of 2000 -7- conviction. Therefore, the appellant is ordered to be sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him in the jail during the pendency of this appeal.
Resultantly, except for this modification in the impugned order of sentence, the appeal fails, and is, hereby, dismissed.
(S.P. BANGARH) JUDGE May 17, 2013 sham