Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1233 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Bakhtawar Singh

2000-10-10

A.S.GARG, HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2000
Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the following facts :- On April 1, 1991 accused Bakhtawar Singh, Darshan Singh and Nirmal Singh (since dead) had a quarrel with respect to a Taur (vacant site) in the village. At about 11.00 A.M., the next morning, Kulwinder Singh, his brothers PW-2 Darshan Singh and Gurdev Singh decided to go to their fields and just as they stepped out, the three accused Bakhtawar Singh, armed with a Spear, Nirmal Singh with a Soti, and Darshan Singh empty handed, accosted them. Darshan Singh raised a Lalkara that Kulwinder Singh be taught a lesson for quarrelling with them, the previous day, on which Nirmal Singh caught hold to Kulwinder Singh and Bakhtawar Singh caused an injury with his Spear in his abdomen. On the receipt of the injury, Kulwinder Singh fell on the ground on which, the accused ran away from the spot. Kulwinder Singh was first removed to the Civil Hospital, Samrala but on account of his serious condition, was referred to the Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. On April 4, 1991 PW-2 Darshan Singh was on his way to Police Station, Samrala to lodge the report about the occurrence when he met PW-7 ASI Chhaju Singh at the Samrala Chowk and made his statement, Ex.PE, to him and on its basis, the formal F.I.R., Ex.PE/2, was recorded in the Police Station, Samrala at 3.30 A.M. for an offence punishable under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Bakhtawar Singh was arrested on April 20, 1991 and on his disclosure statement, a Barchha, Ex.P-1, was recovered from the place of its concealment. Nirmal Singh and Darshan Singh were arrested on April 20, 1991 and July 14, 1991 respectively. After receipt of opinion of Dr. Navneet Chaudhary that the injuries found on the person of Kulwinder Singh were dangerous to life, the accused were charged under Sections 307, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial. 2. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. James Zachariah of the C.M.C., Ludhiana, who had examined Kulwinder Singh on April 2, 1991 and found 4 injuries on his abdomen; PW-2 Darshan Singh, an eye witness and also the first informant; PW-3 Kulwinder Singh, the injured himself; PW-5 Dr. 2. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. James Zachariah of the C.M.C., Ludhiana, who had examined Kulwinder Singh on April 2, 1991 and found 4 injuries on his abdomen; PW-2 Darshan Singh, an eye witness and also the first informant; PW-3 Kulwinder Singh, the injured himself; PW-5 Dr. Gurmit Singh, who had stated that Kulwinder Singh had been brought to the Civil Hospital, Samrala at 11.30 a.m. on April 2, 1991 and had been referred to the C.M.C., Ludhiana after first aid; PW-6 Constable Nazar Chand, who was one of the witnesses to the recovery of Barchha; PW-7 ASI Chhaju Singh, the main Investigating Officer; and PW-8 Dr. Navneet Chaudhary, who had rendered the opinion that the injuries caused on the person of Kulwinder Singh were dangerous to life. 3. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused Bakhtawar Singh and Darshan Singh denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. Bakhtawar Singh stated as under :- "Kulwinder Singh, Gurdev Singh, PW, as well as his father and mother were challaned in a number of Opium Act cases. They suspected us to be the informants against them. We were falsely involved in the present case due to the suspicion at the instance of Gurdev Singh and his parents. Kulwinder Singh was found lying unconscious, with the injuries on his person, in the taur in the early hours of the morning on 2.4.91, from where he was removed to the Hospital. I was taken into custody by the police on 5.4.91 and kept in illegal detention." 4. Accused Darshan Singh also gave a similar statement. 5. The trial Court found that there was an unexplained delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and viewed in this light, the defence taken by the accused that the incident had happened in the early hours of April 2, 1991 and the injuries had been caused by some unidentified assailants, was correct. The Court also accepted the evidence of Dr. James Zachariah, who had stated that the injuries on the person of Kulwinder Singh could have been caused within 24 hours and observed that as Kulwinder Singh had been examined at 1.30 P.M. on April 2, 1991, the injuries could have been received by him during the hours of darkness, as per the defence version. James Zachariah, who had stated that the injuries on the person of Kulwinder Singh could have been caused within 24 hours and observed that as Kulwinder Singh had been examined at 1.30 P.M. on April 2, 1991, the injuries could have been received by him during the hours of darkness, as per the defence version. The Court also observed that from the evidence of PW-7 ASI Chhaju Singh, Ex.PE Darshan Singhs statement, which formed the basis of the F.I.R. had been recorded at 2.00 P.M. on April 4, 1991 and that even this statement had been belied from the record which showed that he had left the police station for the first time at 3.15 P.M. on that day and as such the question of his chance meeting with Darshan Singh at Samrala Chowk did not arise. It was also noted that ASI Chhaju Singh had seriously defaulted in the investigation as Kulwinder Singh injured had been discharged from the hospital on April 25, 1991, yet his statement had been recorded on November 12, 1991 and this silence on the part of Kulwinder Singh, who was the victim was unexplainable. The conduct of Darshan Singh, the brother of the injured and also an eye witness, in not reporting the incident to the police within a reasonable time was also held to be fatal to the prosecution case. The Court also disbelieved the recovery of the Barchha at the instance of accused Bakhtawar Singh. The trial Court accordingly acquitted the two accused of the charges levelled against them. 6. The present appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab impugning the acquittal of Bakhtawar Singh alone. 7. We have heard Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, arguing in support of the appeal. He has first and foremost argued that Kulwinder Singh had been seriously injured and in the light of the facts brought on record, there was no reason to dis-believe his evidence. He has also urged that the belated lodging of the F.I.R. stood explained as Darshan Singhs first anxiety would have been to admit his brother to the hospital and it was only after the injured was on the road of recovery that he had left the hospital to lodge a report. 8. We have considered the arguments of the learned State Counsel. 8. We have considered the arguments of the learned State Counsel. The principles governing the hearing of an appeal against acquittal have been laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1991(1) SCC 166. It has been held that interference would be called for only if the judgment under appeal was perverse or based on a misreading of the evidence and if two views are possible and the trial Court has taken a view in favour of the accused, the High Court should not interfere therein. 9. We have examined the reasons given by the trial Court for making an order of acquittal in the light of the position that Kulwinder Singh himself was a victim and had appeared as a prosecution witness. The entire matter, however, becomes suspect as the F.I.R. had been lodged after an inordinate delay. As per the prosecution story, the incident happened at 11.00 A.M. on April 2, 1991 but the F.I.R. was lodged in the afternoon of April 4, 1991. It has come in the evidence that the injured had reached the hospital at 11.30 A.M. on April 2, 1991 but had immediately been referred to C.M.C., Ludhiana at 1.30 P.M. Even conceding that the F.I.R. could not have been lodged during this period as Darshan Singhs anxiety would have been to take his brother to the hospital, we nonetheless find absolutely no reason to justify the lodging of the F.I.R. on April 4, 1991. This delay, perhaps, is a pointer to the fact that the defence story that Kulwinder Singh had been injured in the early hours of April 2, 1991 and as the identity of the assailants was not known, the filing of the F.I.R. had been kept in abeyance, could well be correct. It has also come in the evidence of Dr. Zachariah that the injuries could have been caused to Kulwinder Singh any time within 24 hours from 1.30 P.M. on April 2, 1991. We also endorse the finding of the trial Court that the FIR had not been lodged even at 2.00 P.M. on April 4, 1991 as ASI Chhaju Singh admitted that he had left the police station for the first time at 3.15 P.M. on that day. 10. We also endorse the finding of the trial Court that the FIR had not been lodged even at 2.00 P.M. on April 4, 1991 as ASI Chhaju Singh admitted that he had left the police station for the first time at 3.15 P.M. on that day. 10. It is true that Kulwinder Singh is an injured witness but his statement was not recorded till November 12, 1991 though he had been discharged from the hospital in the month of April itself. It has come in the evidence of Kulwinder Singh that he had been an accused in 4/5 cases under the Opium Act and was also an opium addict, and that his brother Gurdev Singh and his parents were also involved in 5/6 similar cases. The defence suggestion, therefore, that the injuries had been caused to Kulwinder Singh by some unknown persons as he was stated to be police informer could be correct. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.