Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.1.2005, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Bathinda, vide which, it set aside the judgment dated 21.5.2002, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Bathinda and acquitted accused Harinder Singh @ Raju, for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and accused Rajinder Singh, for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The law was set into motion, by Jagdip Singh, injured, by making a statement before ASI Lal Singh, on 21.3.2000, to the effect that on 20.3.2000 he ( Jagdip Singh) attended the marriage party of his friend, Ashok Kumar, in Dhillon Marriage Palace, Bathinda. People were having drinks and dancing, in the marriage party. Jagdip Singh,however, did not take liquor. Accused Harinder Singh @ Raju and Rajinder Singh asked Jagdip Singh, to arrange pegs of liquor, for them, but he refused to do so. Thereafter, both the accused asked Jagdip Singh, to come out side, the marriage palace. As soon as, he came outside the marriage palace, Rajinder Singh, accused, raised an exhortation that Jagdip Singh be taught a lesson, for not bringing pegs of liquor, for them. He caught hold Jagdip Singh of his arms, and Harinder Singh alias Raju,accused, took out a knife, from the pocket of his pant, and thrust the same in his abdomen. At that time, Bhola Singh, father of Jagdip Singh, was standing there, waiting for him ( Jagdip Singh ).He witnessed the occurrence.Bhola Singh, father of Jagdip Singh raised alarm, that his son be not caused injuries, whereupon, both the accused ran away, from the spot, with knife.The occurrence took place at about 12.30 am (night),on 21.3.2000 when the lights were on. Bhola Singh, father of Jagdip Singh got him admitted, in a private hospital, for treatment. After recording the statement of Jagdip Singh, a ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, FIR under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered. The accused were arrested. Later on, offence punishable under Section 326 IPC was added. After the completion of investigation, the challan was presented.

8. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, on 21.5.2002, an appeal was filed, which was accepted vide judgment dated 20.1.2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Bathinda.

9. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment dated 20.1.2005, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge,-cum-Fast Track Court, Bhatinda, the instant appeal was filed, by the State of Punjab.

10. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

13. The first ground, which weighed with the first Appellate Court, to come to the conclusion, that the case of the prosecution was doubtful, was that considerable delay in lodging the First Information Report, was not explained. The first Appellate Court, in our opinion,was wrong, in coming to the conclusion that delay in lodging the First Information Report, was not explained by the prosecution witnesses, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The occurrence took place on 21.3.2000, outside Dhillon Marriage Palace, Bathinda at about 12.30 am (night). The FIR was registered on 21.3.2000, at about 8.05 pm. No doubt, there was delay of 19 hours, in lodging the FIR. At that odd hour of the night, the shops in the Bazar were closed, and it was not possible to find out a vehicle easily. The first concern of the father of the injured , who witnessed the occurrence , was to provide him the best medical aid so as to save his life. In these circumstances, the father of the injured, in the first instance, searched a rickshaw, which took some time.After arranging the rickshaw, he took his son to Delhi Nursing Home, at a distance of 2/2-1/2 kms, from the place of occurrence. As the road was in bad shape, the rickshaw puller was also to take care, that, on account of pulling of the rickshaw,no discomfort was caused to the injured, sitting therein. As soon as the injured was taken to Delhi Nursing Home, the Doctor admitted him and started his treatment. The Doctor then sent intimation to the police i.e. Civil Lines Police Post, Bathinda at 2.30 a.m. on 21.3.2000. On receipt of information, ASI Lal Singh of Police Post Civil Lines,Bathinda, was deputed for recording the statement of the injured, in Delhi Nursing Home. Since the condition of the injured was precarious, the Doctor after giving him first aid, took him to the operation theatre, at about 3 am, on 21.3.2000, when in the meantime at about 3.30 a.m, ASI Lal Singh reached the said Nursing Home. He moved an application Ex.PE, seeking the opinion of the Doctor, as to whether, Jagdip Singh,injured, was fit to make statement or not.Endorsement Ex.PE/1 on the application Ex.PE, was made by Shivji Ram,pharmacist, that the injured had been taken to the Operation Theatre, and was not available, to make his statement. On account of this reason, the statement of the injured could not be recorded at that time. Thereafter the police officials again visited Delhi Nursing Home at about 8.30 am, on 21.3.2000, and moved an application Ex.PD, seeking the opinion of the Doctor whether Jagdip Singh, injured, was fit to make statement or not. The doctor made endorsement Ex.PD/1 declaring the injured unfit to make statement. It was thereafter that the police visited again at 6 p.m. and sought the opinion of the doctor, vide application Ex.PF whether the injured was fit to make statement or not and the doctor opined vide Ex.PF/1, that the injured was fit to make statement and recording of his statement commenced, which was completed at about 7.15 pm, on the basis whereof, FIR Ex.PW6/B was recorded. Since the injured was immediately taken to Delhi Nursing Home and even at 2.30 a.m. on 21.3.2000 the police was informed by the doctor of the said Nursing Home of his admission, the question of concoction of story, false implication of the accused or introduction of false witnesses did not at all arise, in as much as, there was no time, with the father of the injured, to fabricate the story. Whatever delay occurred, in lodging FIR, thus, stood duly explained, from the facts and circumstances discussed above. The first Appellate Court was, thus, completely wrong in holding that the delay in lodging the FIR did not stand explained and, as such, the case of the prosecution became doubtful.

18. The first appellate Court also came to the conclusion, that no offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, was made out, as the injury on the person of the injured was not declared grievous, nor there was cut of bone. Dr. Sanjay Garg, of Delhi Nursing Home,Bathinda, when appeared as, PW2, deposed that on 21.3.2000 at about 2.30 am the patient was brought by his father and he sent a ruqa to the SHO. He further stated that around 3 cm x 2 cm cut shown with clear cut edges, was found in the abdomen of the injured. Slight oozing was present.It was further stated by the Doctor that globe finger could go beyond sheet into the abdomenal cavity with approximate depth of 4 cms. The doctor further opined that the injury was grievous, as it was caused by knife. He also gave the injury report Ex.PC containing the aforesaid facts. When the police request Ex.PD, was made before the Doctor,he appended his endorsement Ex.PD/1, to the effect that the opinion with regard to the nature of injury, had already been given, by the Medical Board, Civil Hospital,Bathinda. Dr.Satpal Garg,PW1, stated that on 30.3.2000 at 0.45 am, he along with Dr.Jugraj Singh Sandhu, SMO, and Dr.S.S. Romana,Surgical Specialist,Civil Hospital,Bathinda conducted the medicolegal examination of Jagdip Singh, as per the order of the Court of JMIC,Bathinda, and found the following injuries: