Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1116 (PNJ)

Jaipal v. State of Haryana

2003-08-13

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. (Oral) - Jaipal, Mahender Singh and Satpal Singh the three appellants herein have been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide impugned judgment dated 12.5.1990 under Sections 306, 341, 34 Indian Penal Code. They have sentenced as under: Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code to undergo RI for 7 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. Under Section 341 Indian Penal Code to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each. 2. However, all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case are that on 8.6.1989 all the three appellants had exchanged hot words and abuses with Risal Singh (since deceased) while taking liquor. On 9.6.1989 when Bharat Singh PW-4 FIR lodger-complainant was going towards his fields, he noticed Risal Singh being surrounded by the present three appellants in the shamlat land of their village with the intention of implicating him in some false case of Excise Act. At that time Risal Singh was being served liquor by these three appellants. In the meantime, the police arrived there in a Matador. Risal Singh on seeing the police party started running. The prosecution case further goes that when Risal Singh was running the three appellants started chasing him as they wanted that Risal Singh should run in a specific direction. Bharat Singh PW-4 and brother of Risal Singh namely Daya Chand who incidently appeared there, had also started running towards that side. Risal Singh then jumped into the well of Deep Chand out of the fear and died. The police was accordingly informed and the formal FIR Ex. PF was got registered on the statement of Sarpanch Duli Chand. The police swung into motion immediately. Inquest report after taking out the body of the Risal Singh from the well was prepared, a site plan was drawn. The statements of witnesses were also recorded. The appellants were consequently arrested in this case. After the completion of the challan, they were put to stand trial. All the appellants were charged under Sections 306, 341 Indian Penal Code. 4. The statements of witnesses were also recorded. The appellants were consequently arrested in this case. After the completion of the challan, they were put to stand trial. All the appellants were charged under Sections 306, 341 Indian Penal Code. 4. It is worth mentioning here that Jaipal-appellant has also been convicted in an another case bearing FIR No. 116 dated 10.8.1989 under Section 436 Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Badhra and he was filed this separate appeal No. 171-SB of 1990 which is also disposed of by me by a separate judgment of even date. 5. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined PW-1 Dr. Hari Singh who had conducted the post-mortem examination of dead body of Risal Singh and found injuries on his person. According to his opinion the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW-2 is Duli Chand. He had moved an application Ex.PC before the police for the registration of the case. PW-3 Kailash Chander is patwari. He prepared the rough site plan PD. PW-4 Bharat Singh is one of the eye-witnesses who has supported the prosecution case. PW-5 Daya Chand is another eye-witness to the occurrence. PW-6 is ASI Mohinder Singh. PW-7 is ASI Dharam Singh. He is the Investigating Officer. 6. The stand of the appellants as emerges from their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is of false implication. In defence a photostat copy of the complaint titled as Bhup Singh v. Bhartu which was filed by PW-4 Bharat Singh (Ex.D1) was tendered into defence evidence. Besides this the statement of Jaipal-appellant recorded in the said complainant (Ex.D2) was also produced. 7. After recording the entire evidence, all the three appellants have been convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. Dhruv Dayal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. With their assistance I have also gone through the entire record. 9. Mr. Dhruv Dayal at the very outset has submitted that taking the prosecution case to be true Section 306 is not at all proved in this case. Strengthening his arguments it has been further submitted that from the evidence it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that Risal Singh since deceased was abetted to commit suicide. 9. Mr. Dhruv Dayal at the very outset has submitted that taking the prosecution case to be true Section 306 is not at all proved in this case. Strengthening his arguments it has been further submitted that from the evidence it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that Risal Singh since deceased was abetted to commit suicide. He then contends that even if the present appellants have any intention to falsely implicate Risal Singh in this case by serving him liquor in order to implicate him in a case of Excise Act, but from the evidence adduced, it cannot possibly be said that they had in fact even abetted Risal Singh to commit suicide by jumping into well. The evidence so led by the prosecution would not bring its case within the ambit of Section 306 Indian Penal Code and as such all the three appellants deserve acquittal. 10. On the other hand, refuting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Bhardwaj submits that the charges against all the three appellants is proved to the hilt because all the three appellants had put Risal Singh under such a fear or threat that he was left with no option except to take the drastic step of finishing his life by jumping into the well and as such the appellants cannot get out of their liability. 11. After hearing rival contentioons of both the sides I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case to the hilt against any of the appellants. 12. I have once again minutely scanned the statements of PW-4 Bharat Singh and PW-5 Daya Chand who are the so-called eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Bharat Singh is the uncle of Risal Singh and Daya Chand PW-5 is also uncle of Risal Singh. Bharat Singh has stated on oath that on 9.6.1989 when he was going towards his fields, he had noticed that the present three appellants were present along with Risal Singh in the shamlat land for the purposes of implicating him in an Excise case because the present appellant-Risal Singh had exchanged hot words and abuse one day prior to the occurrence over taking of liquor. It has then come in the statement of Bharat Singh that they were forcibly serving liquor to Risal Singh (since deceased) and then threatened him to teach a lesson. It has then come in the statement of Bharat Singh that they were forcibly serving liquor to Risal Singh (since deceased) and then threatened him to teach a lesson. In the meantime, a police Matador consisting of police officials reached there and Risal Singh started running on seeing it. Risal Singh then jumped into the well of one Deep Chand as the present three appellants were chasing him. 13. Daya Chand PW-5 also states that he saw the present three appellants chasing Risal Singh and after some time he jumped into the well. So far as taking of liquor is concerned, he has stated that he did not see Risal Singh ever taking liquor or he used to deal in liquor. 14. From the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, it cannot be said that the present appellants ever abetted Risal Singh or instigated him in any manner to commit suicide, may be that from the evidence it can be said that their intention was to falsely implicated Risal Singh in a case of Excise Act for which they had informed the police in advance. This in any case cannot be legally said to be an abetment. Since the basic ingredient of the abetment is conspicuously missing in this case, the present appellants cannot be booked for the charge of Section 306 Indian Penal Code. 15. There is otherwise delay of six hours in lodging the FIR to the police. Both the witnesses are very closely related to Risal Singh since deceased. 16. I have also perused the cross-examination of both the witnesses. There are many major contradictions in the statements of Bharat Singh PW-4 and Daya Chand PW-5 insomuch so that the presence of the police at the spot also becomes doubtful. Bharat Singh PW-4 has even gone to the extent of saying in his cross-examination that after about one hour of jumping into the well by Risal Singh, he came to know in village that the police had come whereas the basic case set up by the prosecution in the FIR is that when the Matador of police reached near the shamlat land, Risal Singh had started running towards well out of fear. This also creates doubt about the presence of Bharat Singh at the place of occurrence. This also creates doubt about the presence of Bharat Singh at the place of occurrence. I do not want to enter into more discussion regarding certain other weaknesses in the prosecution case, as I am disbelieving the case of the prosecution on the legal aspect. In the light of the aforestated discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case to the hilt against the present three appellants and as such they deserve acquittal. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed, all the three appellants are hereby acquitted of the charge framed against them. They are discharged of their bail bonds henceforth. Let the intimation of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court. Appeal allowed.