Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 9 November, 2022
Author: Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
Bench: Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M)
Sr.No.210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M)
Reserved: 09.11.2022
Date of Decision:21.11.2022
Jasbir Singh .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
......Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan
Present: Mr. P.S.Miglani , Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Arjun Sheoran, D.A.G., Punjab
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J.
1. The appellant Jasbir Singh, at whose complaint FIR No.158 dated 12.10.2010 under Sections 302, 325, 34 IPC at Police Station Dinanagar was registered, has preferred present appeal, alongwith an application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C for grant of leave to appeal, against the judgment and order dated 19.05.2015 whereby learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur (for short Trial Court) has acquitted the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4 on the ground that Page 1 of 18 1 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
2. The brief facts emerging from record which are necessary for adjudication of present appeal are that on 11.10.2010 Jobanpreet Singh (hereinafter referred as "the deceased/the motorcyclist") and Harpreet Singh (hereinafter referred as "the injured/motorcyclist") were going towards fields on motor cycle bearing registration No.PB-05-F-5868 make Bajaj Discover and at about 06:00 PM, when they reached near canal road, a tractor make Mahindra 275 alongwith trolley being driven by respondent-accused Daljit Singh came from oppostie side on which respondent-accused Dalip Singh and Surjit Singh were sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. Appellant/Complainant Jasbir Singh was going at a distance of 100-150 yards from them on his motor cycle bearing registration No.PB-06-L-1937. The respondent Dalip Singh and Surjit Singh raised lalkara and told Daljit Singh to run over the motor cyclist by his tractor. By rashly driving the tractor-trolley, Daljit Singh- respondent hit the motor cycle after coming on the wrong side with an intention to kill the motorcyclist. Resultantly, the motorcyclist fell down on the road. Again Dalip Singh-respondent asked Daljit Singh-respondent to take back the tractor and again hit over them. After that, Daljit Singh-respondent had run the tractor over the legs of the motorcyclist. The injured raised alarm and all the accused ran away from the spot alongwith their tractor trolley. Jobanpreet Singh who is son of the appellant died at the spot, Harpreet Singh who is Page 2 of 18 2 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) nephew of the appellant had got his right leg fractured and Motor cycle was also damaged. Motive behind the occurrence was that there is land dispute between the appellant and the respondents, which was decided in favour of the appellant in the year 2006; and the respondents had caused injuries to the appellant also at that time and a criminal case registered at Police Station Dinanagar was pending in the Court. The respondents were pressurizing the appellant for a compromise but he did not agree and due to that, respondents hit their tractor trolley with the motor cycle of his son and caused his death, whereas Harpreet Singh had also sustained injuries. Shinda and Jind relatives of the appellant came at the spot, who arranged the vehicle and brought the dead body and the injured to Civil Hospital Gurdaspur.
2.1 Investigation of this case was conducted by ASI Gurmeet Singh. He recorded the statement of Jasbir Singh as Ex.PA, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW.8/A was recorded and inquest report was prepared. Thereafter, dead body was sent for post mortem. The statement of injured Harpreet Singh was recorded. Tractor trolley was taken into possession from the house of accused Daljit Singh. On completion of the investigation, challan against the accused Daljit Singh was filed in the Court under Section 304 IPC. 2.2 On presentation of the challan in the Court, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C and the documents attached therewith were supplied to the accused free of costs as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and finding the offence under Section 304 IPC exclusively Page 3 of 18 3 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 11.02.2011 by JMIC, Gurdaspur. 2.3 Charge was framed against Daljit Singh under Sections 304, 325 IPC and thereafter, Dalip Singh and Surjit Singh were summoned to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. After the appearance of the said respondents charge under Section 302 IPC was framed. Vide order dated 27.05.2014 respondents/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2.4. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses including the eye witness Jasbir Singh PW-1, injured eye witness Harpreet Singh PW-2; medical evidence was led by Dr. Ajay Mahajan PW-9 who proved the post mortem report, whereas the injuries on the person Harpreet Singh were proved by Dr.Ashish Sharma of Hargun Hospital, Batala road, Gurdaspur PW-3, Dr. S.K.Hans PW-4 and Dr. Surinder Singh PW-15. Investigation account was disclosed by ASI Gurmit Singh (retired) PW-14 and he proved the documents prepared during the investigation of the case. 2.5. After closure of the prosection evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. As per their statements, respondent Daljit Singh alleged that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case, whereas respondent Surjit Singh alleged that he was not present at the spot at that time and respondent Dalip Singh alleged that he is too old to go any where while sitting on the tractor. Accused did not lead any evidence in Page 4 of 18 4 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) their defence, although they were given sufficient opporunity for the purpose.
2.6 After considering the evidence on record, hearing the public prosecutor and the defence counsel, the trial court acquitted all the respondents/accused disbelieving the testimony of eye witnesses and considering the delay in reporting the matter of the case.
3. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused/respondents beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and as such, they are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. With these findings, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused from all the charges.
4. The Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 19.05.2015, acquitted the accused/respondent and the appellant has filed the present application seeking leave to appeal for setting aside of the aforesaid order passed by the Trial Court.
5. During the proceedings of the appeal, Dalip Singh respondent no. 3 died and proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 15th March, 2015. Whereas, respondent no. 4 Surjit Singh also died during the proceedings of the appeal and proceedings qua him were also abated vide order dated 20th May, 2022.
6. The Trial Court recorded the following reasons while acquitting the respondent:-
Page 5 of 18
5 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) a. The testimony of PW 1 Jasbir Singh( appellant) was disbelieved for the reasons i.e. as per his version he is the only eye witness who was at a distance of 250-300 meter from the motorcycle of the deceased and it is highly probable that he could hear the alleged lalkara of the respondent/accused from such a distance that too in the sound of tractor-trolley. Even his presence has not been shown in the site plan (PW -12/G) of the place of occurrence prepared by the Investigating Officer. In the examination in chief he has not disclosed the vehicle on which the injured and deceased were brought to the hospital. However, in the cross-examination he has stated that the deceased and injured were taken on two separate motorcycles to Dina Nagar Hospital but later on in the cross examination he has stated that they reached Civil Hospital in a Hired Taxi.
b. The Trial Court further held that there is delay of 15 hours in reporting the matter to the police and there is no explanation for the said delay. Admittedly, there is a police station near Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur where the dead body of the petitioner was brought. Appellant PW 1 admittedly remained in the hospital during the night of 11.10.2010 in the said hospital. Even the injured Harpreet Singh was medically examined at 11.40 P.M. on that day. As per the Investigating Officer (PW14) he Page 6 of 18 6 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) had visited the hospital on that very night but nobody was present. However as per the version of appellant (PW1), the police had not visited the hospital on that day. Neither the appellant PW1 nor the injured Harpreet Singh PW 2 had tried to lodge the report to the police despite the fact that Harpreet Singh PW 2 was discharged in a stable condition from Bahri Hospital Dina Nagar, where he was given the first aid. Then he went to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur and then went to another Hospital in Amritsar but he never informed about the occurrence to the police. The delay has been used for concoction of a false story.
c. The prosecution has failed to establish any motive on the part of the respondent to commit the murder of the deceased and to cause injuries to Harpreet Singh.
d. The investigation is shaky and tainted.
e. The original X-Ray report and opinion regarding the
injuries to Harpreet Singh were not proved.
f. As per the report of the hospitals, where the injured
Harpreet Singh took treatment, it is mentioned that he received injuries in the road side accident.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the eye witnesses have supported the prosecution case in all respect. The eye witness count is further supported with medical evidence. The delay of 15 hours in lodging the FIR stands explained with the Page 7 of 18 7 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) fact that the son of the appellant lost his life at the spot whereas, Harpreet Singh who received injuries in the occurrence was another eye witness of the occurrence. He is also closely related to the appellant and received serious injuries. After giving first aid to him he was medically examined on the same day and then he was taken to Amritsar on next day and there he was operated for fracture of his right leg. Due to the death of his son and due to the injuries received by his relative, the appellant could not immediately go to the police station. The Trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the statement of eye witnesses while acquitting the respondents. Thus, the judgement of the trial court is not sustainable.
8. We have perused the record and heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant.
8.1 It is the case of the prosecution that respondent Daljit Singh was driving the tractor-trolley, whereas, respondents Deep Singh and Surjit Singh were sitting on the mudguard. They had seen the deceased when the injured were going on the motorcycle and respondent Dalip Singh raised a lalkara exhorting the driver of the tractor-trolley, whereby the driver drove the tractor-trolley rashly and by coming on the wrong side, hit the motorcyclist. Resultantly, one of the motorcyclist died at the spot and the other sustained injuries. As per the version of the appellant, he had witnessed the occurrence as he was also going at a distance of 100/150 yards from the motorcyclist.
Page 8 of 18
8 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) 8.2 It has been established on record, that alleged occurrence took place on 11th October, 2010, at 6.00 P.M., whereas the FIR was registered at 12th October, 2010, at 12:30 pm i.e. after about 16 hours. It has also come on record that before the registration of the FIR, the first version was given to the doctors that it is a case of roadside accident. During these 16 hours no one has reported to any of the authorities that it was a case of intentional hitting of the tractor-trolley by the respondents. It has come on record that Harpreet Singh (injured) was firstly, taken to Civil Hospital, Dina Nagar, from there he was taken to Bahri Hospital, Dina Nagar and after giving the first aid he was discharged in satisfactory condition and then he went home. Then he got himself admitted in Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, where his medico legal examination was conducted and after that, he was treated in Hargun Hospital, Sri Amritsar Sahib.
8.3 Though, Harpreet Singh, when appeared as PW 2 has only stated that he was carried to Civil Hospital Dina Nagar and then brought to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. But these facts have been clarified by the appellant Jasbir Singh when he appeared as PW1. In his cross-examination, conducted on 23rd, July, 2014, he has stated that they took Harpreet Singh and deceased to Civil Hospital, Dina Nagar, where no doctor was available. Then they took them to Bahri Hospital, Dina Nagar, from where they were referred to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, Even this fact has been stated by the appellant in his cross examination, conducted on 21st of November, 2011. Page 9 of 18
9 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) Apart from the oral testimony of the appellant, there is medical record which indicates that the injured was taken to Bahri Hospital Dina Nagar. PW 3 Dr. Ashish Sharma, Medical Officer of Hargun Hospital, Batala Road, Sri Amritsar Sahib has testified that the injured was treated by way of operating for fracture femur shaft right side on 13th October, 2010. He brought the medical record and proved the same as Ex. PW 3/A. As per the said recorded, injured Harpreet Singh was admitted in the said hospital on 12th October, 2010, at 7.00 p.m. and he gave the "alleged History" as "RSA (Road Side Accident)" on 11th October, 2010, at 7.00 p.m. In the hospital record document Ex. PW 3/A, the photocopy of the medico legal examination conducted at Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, as well as the record of the "Bahri Hospital Dena Nagar" is also found as a part of it. Perusal of the record of the Bahri hospital which is a part of Ex. PW 3/A (Page-173), further indicate that even there it has been mentioned that alleged H/O (history of) Road Side Accident. In addition to this, it has been mentioned in the said document, "advised admission, patient discharged in stable condition". The said entry pertains to 11th October, 2010, i.e. on the day when the occurrence took place. In addition to this, PW15 Dr. Surinder Singh has medically examined the injured. In his cross-examination, he has stated that it was not told by any person that Harpreet Singh received injuries because of the hitting of his motorcycle by the tractor.
From the above evidence on record, it has been established that the injured has reported in two hospitals i.e. Bahri Page 10 of 18 10 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) Hospital, Dina Nagar as well as in Hargun Hospital, Sri Amritsar Sahib that he sustained the said injury in a roadside accident and this has been done by giving a history to the doctor who was treating the injured.
8.4 It has come on record that the tractor-trolley was not recovered from the spot. PW 12 PHC Prem Parkash, has taken the photographs of the place of occurrence. In his cross- examination, he has stated that the tractor-trolley was not at the spot when he reached there. Even the Investigating Officer Gurmeet Singh ASI (Retired), PW-14, has stated that the tractor-trolley was taken into possession from the house of the accused Daljit Singh on 15.10.2010, vide memo Ex. PW 14/L. 8.5 It has also come on record that the tractor-trolley was in working condition and there was no such dent or indication that it has met with an accident, or it has hit another vehicle. After the tractor was taken into possession from the house of the respondent, it was mechanically tested by PW7, Head Constable, Krishan Gopal. The mechanical test report of the tractor-trolley is proved by the said witness as Ex. PW 7/B. The statement of the said witness as well as the mechanical test report Ex. PW 7/B indicates, that the steering, foot brakes, accelerator, tire-rod were found in working condition. However, there was no light and horn in the tractor. The mechanical test report as well as the statement of PW 7 does not give any indication that there was any damage or dent to the said tractor- trolley.
Page 11 of 18
11 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) 8.6 As per the medical evidence on record, the injuries on the person of the injured were possible due to fall. Apart from this, the injury number one to three on the person of the deceased were also possible due to fall. Dr. PW4 doctor S.K. Hans in his statement recorded on 2nd February, 2015, has stated in his cross-examination that the possibility of injury by fall on sharp surface cannot be ruled out. He had conducted the X-Ray examination of the injured Harpreet Singh. PW 9 Dr. Ajay Mahajan has conducted the postmortem examination of the diseased. In his cross-examination, he has stated that possibility of injuries no. 1 to 3 being caused on hitting a hard surface cannot be ruled out.
8.7 The learned Trial Court has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive in this case. No doubt it is a case based on direct evidence and motive does not have much relevance, however, the complainant has specifically alleged a motive in his statement given to the police while reporting the matter. In the said (Ex. PA), he had stated that the motive was that there was a land dispute between the appellant and the respondents which was decided in favour of the appellant in the year, 2006. The accused had caused injuries to him and a criminal case was registered in police station, Dina Nagar. However, the said case is pending in the court and the accused/respondents were pressurizing them for a compromise, but they did not agree and due to this reason, the respondents had hit their tractor- trolley with the motorcycle of his son. As a result, his son has died and Harpreet Singh has sustained Page 12 of 18 12 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) injuries. The motive propounded by the appellant in this case is totally falsified. Though, injured Harpreet Singh PW 2 has stated in the cross-examination recorded on 23rd July, 2014, that one case is pending between the parties but he was not aware as to whether it was a civil case or criminal case. But the appellant, when appeared as PW 1 has categorically stated in his statement recorded during trial on 23rd July, 2014, that there is no criminal case pending between him and accused in any court except the present.
In the present case, the appellant has alleged a specific motive which he has failed to prove. The prosecution has failed to prove on record, the copy of any FIR or any document pertaining to any criminal case, which was registered between the parties before the registration of the present FIR. Even in the statement recorded on 09.12.2011, PW-1 Jasbir Singh (appellant) has stated that no case is pending between him and the accused party. Earlier there was a fight between his father and father of the accused Dalip Singh but matter was compromised but the matter did not go to the Court. 8.8 It has come on record that the deceased who was allegedly driving the motorcycle at the time of occurrence was minor. As per the postmortem examination report Ex. PW 9/A, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 15/16 years. PW 1 Jasbir Singh Appellant, who is father of the deceased, has categorically stated in his cross-examination, that the deceased was about 14 to 15 years of age at that time. This fact indicate that there is no proof that the deceased was having the skill of driving a motorcycle or that he was Page 13 of 18 13 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) properly driving the motorcycle by taking all care. It is not proved that he was holding any valid driving license.
8.9 There is delay of 16 hours in reporting the matter to the police. It is proved that the doctor of Civil Hospital had given intimation to police, when dead body was brought. The Investigating Officer PW14 Gurmeet Singh, ASI (Retired), has stated that on 11.10.2010, he received a wireless message from Police Station, City Gurdaspur, to the effect that one Joban Preet Singh had died due to the accident near a village Alyachak. Then he along with his police party reached Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, where injured Harpreet Singh was admitted. He has further testified that the injured was declared unfit to make a statement, however, nobody was available to suffer a statement, therefore, no proceedings were conducted regarding the dead body in the mortuary of the Hospital. However, the appellant PW 1 has stated in the cross-examination, conducted on 23rd July, 2014 that they remained in the hospital for the night but the police came on the next day. The delay in reporting the matter to the police is also to be seen in view of the fact that the appellant and the deceased family are related to each other. In the cross-examination of the appellant Jasbir Singh, PW1, recorded on 9th December, 2011, he has stated that the father of the accused and his father are collateral and they are not real brothers. All these facts indicate that the parties are distantly related as collaterals and there was some fight in the families before the present occurrence, which was mutually compromised. Respondent Surjit Singh has also stated in his Page 14 of 18 14 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. that he has been involved in this case due to party friction in the village.
9. From the aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that parties are distantly related being co-related. The deceased was a minor not holding a valid driving license but he was driving the motorcycle. The injured was stated to be a pillion rider. There is strong indication that the motorcyclist had met with an accident. This indication is corroborated with the fact that in the hospital when the injured had gone for medical treatment, he has given the history of the roadside accident. Even on the next day, i.e. 12th October, 2010, when he was taken to another hospital, he has given the history of a roadside accident. As per the Investigating Officer, he reached the hospital on the same day, on receiving intimation that a dead body has been brought. For 16 hours the police was not given any version that it is a case of intentional killing of the deceased or intentionally causing injuries by way of hitting a tractor-trolley. Though an explanation of delay has been given that the son of the appellant had died and the relatives were busy taking care of the injured, but this explanation is found false in view of the fact that the motive recorded in the first information given to the police is found false. No previous criminal case was proved to be pending, whereas it has been stated to be a motive for causing this occurrence. Appreciating the testimony of the appellant and the injured witness, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has rightly not believed the testimony of the eye witnesses. The trial court has rightly observed that the delay in Page 15 of 18 15 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) lodging the FIR remained totally unexplained and it appears that the delay has been utilized by the prosecution to concoct a false story to implicate the accused in this case. The trial court has also rightly observed the presence of the appellant at the time of occurrence is doubtful. He is not shown to be present at the site-plan prepared by the Investigating Officer.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that if two views are possible, the benefit of doubt must be granted to accused. It has been further held that if two views are possible, the order of acquittal should not be set aside by High Court because there is double presumption of innocence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhanapal v. State By Public Prosecutor, Madras, (2009) 10 SCC 401 while dealing with scope of interference at appellate stage in an appeal against order of acquittal has held:
"39.The following principles emerge from the cases above:
1. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but the appellate court must give due weight and Page 16 of 18 16 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M) consideration to the decision of the trial court.
3. The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.
4. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached-- one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction--the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
11. In the case in hand, the opinion expressed by the trial court is not only a possible view, but also it is fair and reasonable and cannot be termed as perverse in any manner, thus, it does not warrant interference. As noted above, there is always presumption of innocence and in case of acquittal, there is double presumption. The burden lies upon prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has passed a detailed, reasoned and speaking judgment and we find no infirmity in the said judgment. There is no manifest error, illegality or non-application of mind or non-appreciation of evidence which could compel us to form an opinion different from the opinion formed by the learned Trial Court. Page 17 of 18
17 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 ::: CRM-A-7-MA-2017(O&M)
12. Finding no merit in the present appeal, we are of the considered opinion that leave to appeal deserves to be declined and accordingly application seeking leave to appeal as well as appeal is dismissed.
(Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia) (Harpreet Kaur Jeewan)
Judge Judge
21st November, 2022
Shivani Kaushik
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Page 18 of 18
18 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 18:00:14 :::