Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 29 (PNJ)

Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab

2000-01-11

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2000
JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - Jaspreet Singh alias Gullu, Paramdip Singh alias Tony were sent to face trial for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. At the close of the trial, they were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide his judgment dated May 23, 1996. Aggrieved by this judgment Dalbir Singh complainant, on whose statement case was registered, has filed the present criminal revision petition. 2. Dalbir Singh complainant had gone to village Baserke to attend the marriage of the daughter of Didar Singh and the marriage was to be solemnised on 31.1.1993. Jaspreet Singh alias Gullu was present. He was in a drunken condition and he told complainant Dalbir Singh that they had not supported his maternal uncle Sahib Singh in the Panchayat elections. Thus an altercation took place between the two. Jaspreet Singh alias Gullu asked Dalbir Singh to state on oath in the Gurdwara that he had supported Sahib Singh. Accordingly Dalbir Singh agreed to take oath and they went to Gurdwara. After taking oath when he came out Gullu stated abusing him and tried to give shoe beating to Dalbir Singh. Dalbir Singh also returned the abuses. On the intervention of Jaimal Singh Sarpanch they were separated. In the meantime Paramdip Singh alias Tony accused carrying a revolver came there and threatened to shoot Dalbir Singh for quarrelling with his brother. They were, however, separated and both the parties went to their respective houses at about 3/4 p.m. 3. On the same day at about 6/7 p.m. Dalbir Singh with his brother Mohar Singh and their nephew Dilbagh Singh were present in their house. Jaspreet Singh alias Gullu and Paramdip Singh alias Tony came there and they started abusing. Dalbir Singh, Mohar Singh and Dilbagh Singh went to the roof of the house. The accused opened fire from their rifles and one shot hit Mohar Singh on the left side of the chest and he fell down. Dalbir Singh complainant ran into the Chaubara and brought with him licensed rifle belonging to his father and fired shots in the air in order to scare the accused but the accused fired two more shots towards them and ran away. 4. The injured was taken to the hospital at Taran Taran but he was declared dead. Dalbir Singh complainant ran into the Chaubara and brought with him licensed rifle belonging to his father and fired shots in the air in order to scare the accused but the accused fired two more shots towards them and ran away. 4. The injured was taken to the hospital at Taran Taran but he was declared dead. Dalbir Singh leaving behind Jaimal Singh Sarpanch went to the police station to lodge the report on the next morning. The investigating officer prepared the inquest report, got the post mortem examination conducted on the dead body, visited the place of occurrence, lifted the blood-stained earth and recorded the statements of the witnesses and on completion of the investigations accused were challaned. 5. After supplying copies under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prima facie case under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The substance of accusation was put to the accused who in their statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, have denied the allegations and examined as many as three witnesses in defence. 7. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence and material brought on the record gave a specific finding that the oral account given by Dalbir Singh and Dilbagh Singh PWs cannot be accepted and there is no other evidence which may connect the accused with the commission of the offence, therefore, after giving them the benefit of doubt, they were acquitted. 8. I have heard Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Gobind Goyal Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 and Mr. I.P.S. Sidhu, AAG appearing on behalf of State of Punjab respondent No. 1. It was brought to my notice that respondent No. 2 had died. 9. Mr. Lakhanpal, learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset contended that the trial Court has erred in giving undue weightage to the fact that there were terrorist activities at the time of occurrence and that, may be, the deceased was killed due to rivalry between two groups. It is submitted that if that was the basis then there was no reason for the petitioner to implicate the accused falsely in this case. The eye witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that if that was the basis then there was no reason for the petitioner to implicate the accused falsely in this case. The eye witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. It cannot be said to be a case of mistaken identity, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court against the facts and evidence brought on record requires to be set aside as there is sufficient material to record the conviction against the respondent. 10. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the material brought on the record, particularly the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, discussed at length the statements of the eye witnesses as well as the medical evidence, there is no doubt to arrive at a conclusion that the learned Sessions Judge has carefully and meticulously appreciated the evidence. The improbabilities in the statements of the witnesses and the manner in which the occurrence took place have also been clearly discussed at length. It is a question of fact that in fact in such like cases where the eye witnesses themselves are not clear about the occurrence then this Court will be loath to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. 11. It is well settled that there is no difference in both the appeals i.e. the appeals against acquittal or conviction excepting that appeal against conviction is of right whereas an appeal against acquittal can be made only to the High Court. The Court has full powers while hearing appeals against acquittal to re-appreciate and to come to the conclusion that order of acquittal is bad or not as has been held in Banwari Ram v. State of U.P., 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 282. Thus there is no justification to interference with the order dated May 23, 1995 when the order does not appear to be bad or incorrect. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed.