Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Jagsir Singh And Others on 19 March, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 474-DBA of 1996
Date of Decision : March 19, 2010
State of Punjab
....Appellant
Versus
Jagsir Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. P.S.Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
Mr. M.L.Saini, Advocate
for the respondents.
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
The respondents were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, for offences under Sections 325/324/323/34 IPC on the allegations that on 30.11.1993 at about 8.30 p.m. they caused injuries to Dalip Singh and Gurnam Singh. Though the case was triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, yet keeping in view the fact that there was a cross case under Sections 307/452/323/34 IPC and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, the present case was also committed to the Court of Sessions where the respondents were charged as mentioned above. Vide judgment and order dated 11.12.1995 the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt to the accused. Accordingly, all the respondents were acquitted of the Crl. Appeal No. 474-DBA of 1996 -2- charges against them.
The reasons recorded by the trial Court in acquitting the respondents are contained in para 17 of the impugned judgment, which reads as follows:-
"No doubt injured Dalip Singh gave the eye witness account involving all the three accused but I have least hesitation to hold that he simply failed to stand the test of cross-examination and hence he cannot be termed to be truthful witness under the circumstances. His cross-examination simply reveals that either he believed in improvements on vital aspects or made an abortive bid to escape clear cut answers in his cross- examination. At one stage he stated that he might have been prosecuted twice in two separate murder cases before though he otherwise could give a straight answer to the specific question put. His cross- examination also reveals that he had been prosecuted twice for offence under Section 452 IPC though was discharged while offence under Section 25, Arms Act, 9 Opium Act though acquitted as admitted by him. Further stated in his cross-examination that he had given his age to the police at 81 years but when confronted his age in the statement Ex.PN made before police was found having been recorded as about 70 years only. He in his cross-examination stated that he had stated in his statement Ex.PN that Jawala Singh had a gun with him but this vital fact has been found missing from just referred statement Ex.PN and was duly confronted. He also stated having stated before Crl. Appeal No. 474-DBA of 1996 -3- police that Jawala Singh had fired shots but this vital part of the statement as made in examination in chief again it missing from statement Ex.PN attention of the witness whereof too was drawn. It cannot be said that he was not non-committal on important aspect when he stated that he did not know if any blood had fallen on the ground and if any civil litigation between him alongwith Panchayat on one hand and accused Gurbax Singh on the other hand had been pending. At this juncture copy of judgment Ex.DX/2 cannot remain unreferred which suggests that accused Gurbax Singh had instituted suit against Gram Panchayat and others including injured Dalip Singh and that the suit had been decreed. Statement of Gurnam Singh who is another stamped witness also is not on any better footing as his cross-examination suggests as he too believed in embellishments. He admittedly had not stated to the police that Jawala Singh had a gun. However, he asserted having told the police that Jawala Singh had fired from the gun but this fact is alien to the facts stated by him in his statement Ex.DD before police. Further more, he likewise was non- committal when stated that he could not say if blood had fallen on the ground or not. Further more, version given by them both that occurrence took place outside the house of accused Gurbax Singh also stands shattered beyond repair when Inspector Harbhajan Singh appearing as PW8 stated in his cross- examination that he had lifted blood stained earth as well as empties from inside the courtyard of the house and that there was no indication of the occurrence Crl. Appeal No. 474-DBA of 1996 -4- which might give inkling that violence leading to the occurrence had taken place outside the house of which just referred courtyard was a part. Fact that these two PWs had absconded from the hospital as has come in the cross-examination of Inspector Harbhajan Singh also goes against the propriety of prosecution version undoubtedly to a large extent".
After going through the evidence available on the record, this Court finds that the learned trial Court was justified in holding that both Dalip Singh and Gurnam Singh had made improvements on material aspects of the case. Their evidence was also found to be contradictory inter-se. It was also found that both the aforementioned witnesses had absconded from the hospital and this fact was so admitted by Inspector Harbhajan Singh when he went to record their statements.
In view of the above, the Court is of the view that no case is made out for any interference in the impugned judgment. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
( T.P.S. MANN )
March 19, 2010 JUDGE
ajay-1