Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1072 (PNJ)

State Of U. T. Chandigarh v. Sukhminder Singh

2001-10-03

H.S.GARG, HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2001
Judgment H.S.Garg, J. 1. This appeal is against the order of acquittal of the accused for the offences under Sections 307/324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. 2. Navin Kumar PW 5 was living with his uncle Jagdish Rai in a residential house bearing No. 330 Sector 7, Chandigarh. About 1 1/2 months before the present occurrence he and his cousin Sansar Chand PW 8 had a dispute with the neighbours. On 25.8.1988 at about 10.30 P.M., Sukhminder Singh accused along with two other boys, one Sikh and one clean shaven met them. Out of them one boy asked as to whether Navin Kumar and Sansar Chand had any dispute with any one and their reply was positive. On this Sukhminder Singh brought a hockey stick from his house and the other companion brought a knife. The unknown person armed with a knife inflicted injuries on the person of Sansar Chand PW 8. As Navin Kumar PW 5 came forward to rescue his cousin he was also inflicted injuries by-those boys. Sukhminder Singh accused also inflicted injuries to them with strick. Navin Kumar being afraid ran away from the spot and Sansar Chand on receipt of injuries fell down at the spot. On receipt of information from the control room, SI Darshan Kumar PW l0 went to the spot and found Navin Kumar PW5 and Sansar Chand PW 8 lying in injured condition. Sansar Chand injured was removed to P.G.I. 3. Statement Ex. PK of Navin Kumar PW 5 was recorded by SI Darshan Kumar PW 10 on 25.8.1988 and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex.PK/1 was recorded to the Police Station at 12.35 A.M. on 25.8.1988. The special report reached the learned Ilaga Magistrate at 10.00 A.M. on 26.8.1988. Then the Investigating Officer prepared rought site plan Ex. PN of the place of occurrence and lifted blood stained earth from the spot vide memo Ex. PK/B. As per medico legal report the injuries on the person of Navin Kumar and Sansar Chand injured were declared dangerous to life. The clothes of the injured were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG/2. Sukhminder Singh accused was arrested on 30.8.1988. The Investigating Officer also photographed the place of occurrence. In pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex. PM, Sukhminder Singh accused got recovered knife Ex. P 17 and hockey Ex. The clothes of the injured were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG/2. Sukhminder Singh accused was arrested on 30.8.1988. The Investigating Officer also photographed the place of occurrence. In pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex. PM, Sukhminder Singh accused got recovered knife Ex. P 17 and hockey Ex. P 18, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PM/2. 4. At the trial, the respondents-accused pleaded innocence. However, both the accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them by the learned trial Judge. 5. We have gone through the evidence on record and find that Sansar Chand PW 8 stated that Sukhminder Singh inflicted knife blows on his left flank, back of left shoulder and he fell unconscious on the scene of occurrence. He claimed that in fact he had no quarrel with the respondents in any way. His statement on oath in Court was contradicted on material points which indicated that in fact he could not say as to what was the motive of the occurrence or the assault on him. The story was improved by the witnesses that they had a quarrel with the respondents about 7/8 months earlier. This occurrence was not explained by the witnesses and details thereof were not mentioned but now they stated that the matter went to the police and was compromised. However, there is nothing on record with regard to this fact. In fact Sansar Chand PW 8 himself was drunk on the evening of 24.8.1988 as admitted by him in cross- examination and stated that he had taken a full bottle of beer while tooking his meals and one cannot vouch-safe his credibility. Navin Kumar PW 5 though stated the prosecution story but his version made before the police and what he deposed in court are contradictory to each other. He had claimed in his statement before the police that Sansar Chand had brought only a hockey from his house and not a knife. It is surprising as to who inflicted the knife blow. A hockey blow was allegedly given on the head of Navin Kumar by the third accused but in Ex. PK, the statement of the witness; it was not so, recorded. So instead of mentioning each and every contradiction and material omissions, it would be enough and sufficient to say that there are concealment and improvements in the statements of the witnesses. PK, the statement of the witness; it was not so, recorded. So instead of mentioning each and every contradiction and material omissions, it would be enough and sufficient to say that there are concealment and improvements in the statements of the witnesses. Navin Kumar did not approach the police despite the fact that Sansar Chand his cousin had suffered serious injuries who was lying on the spot unconscious and spotted by some one else rather than Navin Kumar. Therefore, there appears to be some serious concealment in the whole story of the prosecution. Because of the serious contradictions and improbabilities in the version of the witnesses indicate that the version of the prosecution was not believable. Out of the three accused the police has not been able to find out as to who was the third person. Shiv Kumar admittedly did not inflict any injury on any one and was standing near the scene of occurrence. The respondents role and participation in the occurrence appears to be doubtful for the reasons mentioned above. We are, therefore, of the view that when the acquittal is well based and the view acquitting the respondents has been taken by the learned trial Judge which could really have been taken, we do not find any reason to interfere with the acquittal of the respondents. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.