Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: malout in Malook Singh And Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 March, 2010Matching Fragments
10. Sequelly, PW6 HC Amrik Singh, PW9 HC Karamjit Singh and PW10 Constable Sushil Kumar are the formal witnesses, who have only tendered into evidence their affidavits (Ex.PC, Ex.PO and Ex.PP) respectively.
11. The main complainant/injured eye witness Surjit Singh while appearing as PW4 has stated in the following manner:-
"On 20.10.1995, at about 7.00 p.m. I alongwith my brother Gurmit Singh was going towards our haveli from our house. I was two karams ahead to my brother. Accused present in the court were standing in the way. Malook Singh accused raised lalkara that Surjit Singh i.e. I be not allowed to go scot free. Both the accused were armed with barchha. Accused Malook Singh is father of Amrik Singh. Accused Amrik Singh then gave barchha blow in my abdomen towards right side. I fell down on the ground and also raised alarm. My brother-Gurmit Singh also raised raula. Then I became unconscious. Accused then managed to escape with their respective weapons. I was taken to Civil Hospital Malout in a van. Civil Hospital Malout then referred me to Medical College, Faridkot where I was medically examined. Police came in the hospital on the following morning at about 11.00 a.m. and recorded my statement which is Ex.PH which was signed by me after admitting the contents as correct.
15. The appellants, in order to substantiate their defence plea, examined DW1 Gurjant Singh, Patwari Revenue, Circle Rajianwali Tehsil Abohar, who maintained that in the year 1995, he conducted the Nehari Girdawari of three villages, namely, Virk Khera, Alamwala and Jhurar. On 20.10.1995, he was having his temporary residence in village Jhurar. Malook Singh accused had met him in village Jhurar and told him that he (Malook Singh) had brought dasti summons for his service, vide which, he (DW1) was required to appear before the Deputy Collector Canals, Abohar. He remained for about one hour with him and then left for Malout. Malook Singh has been working as Sewadar in their Ziledar Office Malout.
22. Be that as it may, as regards the participation of appellant Amrik Singh is concerned, there is more than sufficient evidence on record to connect him with the crime in question, as discussed here-in-above.
23. Above being the position of evidence on record, now adverting to the celebrated argument of the learned counsel for appellant Amrik Singh that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR in the police station and also no explanation is forth coming on record as to why PW5 did not lodge the report on the same day, which, according to him, is fatal to the prosecution case. In this regard, the prosecution claimed that the occurrence took place at 7 P.M. on 20.10.1995. PW4 felled on the ground after receipt of injury and became unconscious. PW5 took him in an injured condition to Civil Hospital, Malout. Immediately thereafter, PW1 referred the injured to Sri Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, keeping in view his condition where he was medico legally examined at 3.05 A.M., vide MLR (Ex.PA). PW8 reached the hospital. He moved an application (Ex.PM) and after getting medical opinion (Ex.PM/1), he recorded the statement (Ex.PH) of PW4, made his endorsement (Ex.PH/1) and sent the same to the Police Station Sadar Malout at 11 A.M., which formed the basis of FIR (Ex.PH/2). It means, the delay in lodging the FIR was duly explained in these circumstances.
25. Therefore, taking into consideration the distances between the place of occurrence and Civil Hospital, Malout and from Civil Hospital, Malout to Sri Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot and Police Station Sadar Malout and natural human conduct of PW5, to my mind, the delay stood duly explained. The prompt admission and medical examination of the injured in the hospital lends further corroboration to the prosecution version. Moreover, in injury case, mere delay for lodging the report to the police is not at all fatal to the prosecution case. That being so, the arguments that the delay remained unexplained and PW5 did not lodge the FIR pale into insignificance in this relevant connection. As is clear from the evidence on record, the delay in lodging the FIR has satisfactorily been explained, which is not per se fatal, specially when the case of the prosecution is otherwise supported by the injured/stamped eye witness PW4 and eye witness PW5 coupled with the medical evidence.