Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 304 (PNJ)

Dilbagh Singh @ Bagga v. State Of Punjab

2005-02-23

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2005
Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 258-SB of 1993 filed by Dilbagh Singh and Criminal Appeal No. 267-Sb of 1993 filed by Surinder Kumar, Bablu Singh and Rajinder Kumar arise out of the same judgment dated 12.7.1993 by which the appellants were convicted and sentenced for having committed offences punishable under Sections 324, 326, 34 IPC. 2. The facts of the case are that on 20.7.1991 at about 8.00/8.30 P.M., Chanchal Kumar complainant was coming from Chander Nagar towards Nali Mohalla on a scooter being driven by him. Sat Pal was a pillion rider. When they reached near the Marudir known as Sundianwala, all the four accused (appellants) were found standing there near the electric pole and the electric light was on. Dilbagh Singh accused was known to Chanchal Kumar earlier. He gave a signal to Chanchal Kumar complaint for stopping the scooter. Chanchal Kumar stopped the scooter. Dilbagh Singh accused demanded the scooter from him, but Chanchal Kumar refused to oblige him. On this, Bablu Singh appellant caught hold of Chanchal Kumar from his neck from behind while Dilbagh Singh appellant gave a knife blow hitting him in his abdomen. Other two accused caught hold of Sat Pal. Rajinder Kumar appellant gave a knife blow to Sat Pal hitting him on the left armpit and the second knife blow hit him on his thigh. Chanchal Kumar raised an alarm "Marditta Marditta", upon which all the accused appellants ran away along with their weapons. In the meantime, Gian Chand reached there and he shifted both the injured to New Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. The statement of Chanchal Kumar was recorded on 23.7.1991 at about 8.00 P.M., and the present case was registered. After investigation, the appellants were challaned. 3. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 307/326/324/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Chanchal Kumar complainant as PW-1; Sat Pal injured as PW-2; ASI Mohinder Singh, the investigating officer, as PW-3; Harminder Singh, Draftsman, as PW-4; Dr Gurpreet Singh Brar as PW-5; Dr Swapan Sood, Senior Resident Medical Officer, as PW-6. This witness had conducted the medico legal examination on the persons of Chanchal Kumar PW-1 and Sat Pal PW-2. ASI Harjinder Singh appeared as PW-7 and the prosecution evidence was closed. 5. This witness had conducted the medico legal examination on the persons of Chanchal Kumar PW-1 and Sat Pal PW-2. ASI Harjinder Singh appeared as PW-7 and the prosecution evidence was closed. 5. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., all the appellants pleaded innocence and their false implication due to inimical relations. However, no evidence was led in defence. 6. On the basis of this evidence, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was not made out and therefore, the accused were acquitted under the said charge. However, they were convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 324/ 326/34 IPC. Dilbagh Singh appellant was sentenced to RI for a period of three years and to the fine amount of Rs. 500/- under Section 326 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo RI for two months. The remaining three appellants, namely, Bablu Singh, Surinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar were awarded the same sentence under Sections 326/34 IPC. Surinder Kumar appellant was also sentenced to RI for a period of three years and the fine amount of Rs. 500/- under Section 326 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo RI for two months. The remaining three appellants, namely, Dilbagh Singh and Bablu Singh and Rajinder Kumar were awarded the same sentence under Section 326/34 IPC. Surinder Kumar appellant was also sentenced to RI for a period of one year under Section 324 IPC, while the remaining three appellants, namely, Dilbagh Singh and Bablu Singh and Rajinder Kumar were awarded the same sentence under Section 324/ 34 IPC. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 7. Hence, accused Dilbagh Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No. 258-SB of 1993 while the remaining three accused, namely, Surinder Kumar, Bablu Singh and Rajinder Kumar, have filed Criminal Appeal No. 267-SB of 1993. 8. Surinder Kumar accused-appellant has died during the pendency of proceedings before this Court. 9. I have gone through the record of the case with the help of Mr. Ramesh Sharma and Mr. Gurcharan Dass, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.S. Ladhar, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. I have also considered the submissions made before me by them. 10. Surinder Kumar accused-appellant has died during the pendency of proceedings before this Court. 9. I have gone through the record of the case with the help of Mr. Ramesh Sharma and Mr. Gurcharan Dass, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.S. Ladhar, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. I have also considered the submissions made before me by them. 10. Even according to the prosecution case, the occurrence had taken place on 20.7.1991 at about 8.00/8.30 P.M., but the matter was reported to the police on 23.7.1991 at about 7.50 P.M., i.e. after the delay of about three days. The settled law is that the matter should be reported to the police without delay because the delay gives rise to the presumption that the story has been concocted and innocent persons have been roped in while false witnesses have been introduced as eye-witnesses. No doubt, the delay in reporting the matter to the police in itself is not fatal, but it has to be explained. Besides that the delay in reporting the matter to the police puts the Court on its guard to scrutinize the case more closely so as to rule out the possibility of false implication. 11. The prosecution has tried to explain the delay by proving that both Chanchal Kumar PW-l and Sat Pal PW-2 were shifted to New DMC and Hospital, Ludhiana, immediately after the occurrence. The medical evidence is also proved that Chanchal Kumar was medically examined in the hospital at 9.00 P.M. (Exhibit PF) while Sat Pal was medically examined in the hospital at 9.30 P.M. (Exhibit PG). There is no doubt about the prosecution version that immediate interest of the relatives of the injured persons is to get them medical aid in order to save their lives and in the present case, it is proved that both the injured were shifted to the hospital without loss of time. 12. ASI Mohinder Singh was examined as PW-3. This witness reported that he came to know about the admission of the injured in the hospital on 21.7.1991. He had deputed HC Harjinder Singh to the hospital, who had filed an application before the doctor to know if the injured were fit to make the statement. However, the doctor had reported that both the injured were unfit to make the statement. He had deputed HC Harjinder Singh to the hospital, who had filed an application before the doctor to know if the injured were fit to make the statement. However, the doctor had reported that both the injured were unfit to make the statement. On 22.7.1991, ASI Mohinder Singh PW-3 himself went to the hospital and filed an application Ex. PB to know the condition of Chanchal Kumar injured, but the doctor reported on that day at 4.00 P.M., that Chanchal Kumar was not fit to make the statement. However, Sat Pal injured was discharged from the hospital. On 23.7.1991 again ASI Mohinder Singh PW-3 filed an application before the doctor to know the condition of Chanchal Kumar injured, who was declared fit by the doctor at 6.25 P.M., and thereafter, the statement of Chanchal Kumar Ex. PA was recorded. 13. Dr. G.S. Brar PW-5 has also proved that Dr. Amandeep Singh had declared Chanchal Kumar injured as unfit to make the statement on 21.7.1991 at 10.10 A.M. vide report Ex. P-1 while Dr Gurpreet Singh had declared Sat Pal injured as unfit to make the statement on 21.7.1991 at 10.15 A.M., vide report Ex. P-2. He also proved that Chanchal Kumar was/unfit to make the statement even on 22.7.1991 at 4.00 P.M., vide report Ex. PB. 14. The important factor to be considered in this case is that even according to the prosecution case, Sat Pal injured was discharged from the hospital on 22.7.1991. Therefore, he could have reported the matter to the police. He was stated to be an eye-witness and injured at the time of the occurrence. Therefore, the delay in reporting the matter to the police for full 24 hours from 22.7.1991 to 23.7.1991 by Sat Pal injured has not been explained. As a result therefore the prosecution evidence has to be scrutinised carefully in order to rule out the possibility of false implication. 15. Another submission made by learned counsel for Rajinder Kumar and Bablu Singh was that these appellants were not known to Chanchal Kumar PW-1 and Sat Pal PW-2 earlier. A reference was made to the cross-examination of Chanchal Kumar PW-1, who has stated in his cross-examination that Surinder Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Bablu Singh were not known to him prior to the occurrence. A reference was made to the cross-examination of Chanchal Kumar PW-1, who has stated in his cross-examination that Surinder Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Bablu Singh were not known to him prior to the occurrence. Even the names of these accused were not known to him earlier although this witness has specifically stated that Dilbagh Singh was known to him. Sat Pal PW-2 has also deposed that the accused Surinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar were not known to him prior to the occurrence and only Dilbagh Singh was known to him. No identification parade had taken place for the identification of Surinder Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Bablu Singh appellants. Therefore, their involvement was a matter not free from doubt. In this context, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported as Rajesh Gobind v. State of Maharashtra, Judicial Reports 219, in which the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the holding of identification parade being a rule of prudence is required to be followed strictly in accordance with the settled principles of law and expeditiously. The delay, if any, in holding the identification parade has to be explained satisfactorily by the prosecution. Since the identification parade has not been held in this case and since the accused were identified by the witnesses for the first time in Court, therefore, it can be held as a matter of prudence that the identity of the accused about their involvement in the incident is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 16. In view of the discussion held above, Bablu Singh and Rajinder Kumar are given the benefit of doubt and are acquitted. Surinder Kumar has already died. 17. So far as Dilbagh Singh appellant is concerned he was known to Chanchal Kumar PW-1 and Sat Pal PW-2. Therefore, his identity is not in doubt. He had given a knife blow in the abdomen of Chanchal Kumar, which was found to be grievous in nature. Since there was no evidence to prove that this injury was dangerous to life, therefore, Dilbagh Singh was acquitted under Section 307 IPC and was sentenced under Section 326 IPC along with the other offences relating to the injuries found on the person of Sat Pal PW-2 caused by co- accused of Dilbagh Singh. 18. Since there was no evidence to prove that this injury was dangerous to life, therefore, Dilbagh Singh was acquitted under Section 307 IPC and was sentenced under Section 326 IPC along with the other offences relating to the injuries found on the person of Sat Pal PW-2 caused by co- accused of Dilbagh Singh. 18. The submission of learned counsel for Dilbagh Singh appellant was that the occurrence had taken place on 20.7.1991. Dilbagh Singh had faced the trial in learned trial Court for about two years when he was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 12.7.1993. The appeal of the appellant is also lying pending in this Court for the last more than I1 years. Hence, leniency in the sentence was prayed. It was also submitted that Dilbagh Singh has undergone more than 11 months imprisonment. Reference was made to the judgments reported as State of Punjab v. Harnam Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 507; Dinesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2003 (4) RCR (Criminal) 771; Sajjan Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2003(3) RCR (Criminal) 182 and Randhir Nehra and others v. State of Haryana, 2004(l) All India Criminal LR (S.C.) 395. 19. Accordingly, it is held that Surinder Kumar has died and the appeal qua him stands abated, while Bablu Singh and Rajinder Kumar are given the benefit of doubt and are acquitted. Their appeal is accordingly, accepted. The substantive sentence of imprisonment of Dilbagh Singh is converted to one already undergone. However, the fine amount is increased to Rs. 25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, Dilbagh Singh will undergo RI for six months. The amount of fine be deposited by Dilbagh Singh within a period of three months from today. If he fails to do so by the stipulated period, he would undergo the sentence in default of payment of fine. Steps would be taken for the re- arrest of Dilbagh Singh appellant, as he is on bail, for undergoing the sentences awarded to him in default of payment of fine. The amount of fine, if realised, shall be payable to Chanchal Kumar PW-1 under Section 357 Cr. P.C.