Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 350 (PNJ)

Taqdir Singh v. State Of Haryana

2005-03-05

ARVIND KUMAR, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2005
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 27.9.1997/1.10.1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby he convicted Taqdir Singh son of Shish Ram and Ajit son of Raja Ram under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to further undergo R.I. for six months. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record the death certificate of Taqdir Singh son of Shish Ram, who had died during the pendency of the appeal. Appeal against him has thus abated. We are left with the appeal of Ajit son of Raja Ram only. 3. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex. PE of Randhir Singh given to Chand Mohammad ASI on 24.5.1994 at 8.15 a.m. at Medical College Hospital, Rohtak. 4. Randhir Singh stated, that he had four sons. About six months ago, there was a dispute between Sheesh Ram and his sons over the construction of a bathroom. The matter was compromised by the Panchayat. On 23.5.1994 at about 7.30 p.m., Randhir Singh along with his sons Anil and Satish were returning from their fields. Satish was on leave. He was working as a constable in Haryana POlice. Satish was going a few paces ahead. When he reached near the shop of Vinod son of Attar Barber, Taqdir son of Sheesh Ram and Ajit son of Raje came out from a lane and shouted that they would be taught a lesson for demolishing the bathroom. Taqdir fired a shot from his pistol on the abandomen of Satish and Ajit fired a shot, which hit on the left arm of Satish. Both of them after giving injuries, ran away. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex. PE/1 was recorded on 24.5.1994 at 9.20 a.m. and the special report reached the JMIC, Bahadurgarh on the same day at 3.25 p.m. 5. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box HC Jagat Singh as PW-1, Mahender Singh Draftsman as PW-2, Randhir Singh as PW-3, Anil as PW-4, Dr. Gulshan Arora as PW-5, Satbir as PW-6, Umed Singh as PW-7, ASI Chand Mohammad as PW-8 and Dr. Nidhi Jain as PW-9. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that there is an unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR. Gulshan Arora as PW-5, Satbir as PW-6, Umed Singh as PW-7, ASI Chand Mohammad as PW-8 and Dr. Nidhi Jain as PW-9. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that there is an unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR. Occurrence had taken place at 7.30 p.m. at 23.5.1994. Injured Satish was moved to Medical College Hospital, Rohtak by Randhir Singh PW-3 and Anil PW-4. Statement Ex. PE of Randhir Singh PW-3 was recorded on 24.5.1994 at 8.15 a.m. at Medical College Hospital, Rohtak. Occurrence had taken place in the night of 23.5.2004. The assailants could not have been identified. FIR Ex. PE was recorded on 24.5.1994 at 9.20 a.m. and the special report reached the JMIC on the same day at 3.25 p.m. 7. The medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account. As per statement of Dr. Gulshan Arora PW-5, who examined Satish on 23.5.1994 vide MLR Ex. PG, found a lacerated wound on the right hypochondrium. There were multiple small lacerations of the size of .5 cm x .2 cm around the wound. Blackening was present around the margins of the wounds. Dr. Nidhi Jain PW-9, who conducted the post-mortem examination has opined, that there was a yellow brown metallic bullet recovered from the subcutaneous tissues. She further opined, that the bullet Ex. P-13 was recovered from the body of the deceased and except injury No. 2 all other injuries were surgical wounds. Injury No. 2 was a gun shot injury. In cross-examination, she has stated, that there is only one gun shot injury on the body of the deceased i.e. injury No. 2. 8. Both Randhir Singh PW-3 and Anil PW-4 have stated, that on 23.5.1994 at 7.30 p.m. when Satish reached in front of Vinod Barber Shop, accused Taqdir came out of the lane and shouted that he would teach him (Satish) a lesson for the dispute, which had arisen about the bathroom. Thereafter, Taqdir fired a shot, which hit right flank of Satish. Thereafter, Ajit fired a shot, which hit the left arm of Satish and the pellet embedded in the door of Vinods shop. A country made .12 bore pistol Ex. P-1, was allegedly recovered from appellant Ajit. There is no injury on the left arm of Satish. Appellant Ajit in fact did not fire any shot, nor he was present. Thereafter, Ajit fired a shot, which hit the left arm of Satish and the pellet embedded in the door of Vinods shop. A country made .12 bore pistol Ex. P-1, was allegedly recovered from appellant Ajit. There is no injury on the left arm of Satish. Appellant Ajit in fact did not fire any shot, nor he was present. A metallic bullet was recovered from the right hypochondrium region of the deceased. The medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account. If at all any liability has to be fixed, it can only be on accused Taqdir (since dead). 9. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that the delay in lodging of the FIR has been adequately explained. The first and the foremost concern of Randhir Singh PW-3 and Anil PW-4, being the father and the brother of the deceased was first to save the life of Satish. Occurrence had taken place at 7.30 p.m. and it being night time, the police did not come into action. It was on the next day i.e. 24.5.1994, when the police came and the statement Ex. PE of Randhir was recorded. There is a motive for the commission of the offence. A dispute had arisen between the complainant and the appellants regarding the construction of a bathroom. The matter had been compromised, but the appellants kept a grudge in their mind against the complainant party. 10. The medical evidence has corroborated the ocular account. The eye-witness account as stated by both Randhir Singh PW-3 and Anil PW-4 is cogent and truthful. The metallic substance found from the body of the deceased is the bullet fired from the .12 bore country made pistol Ex. P-1 of appellant Ajit. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 12. The medical evidence in this case does not corroborate the ocular account. Randhir Singh PW-3 and Anil PW-4 in their testimony before the Court, have stated that on 23.5.1994 at about 7.30 p.m., they were coming from the fields. When Satish reached in front of Vinod Barber shop, accused Taqdir (expired) came out from a lane and exhorted that he would teach him (Satish) a lesson for making the bathroom. Thereafter, accused Taqdir fired a shot, which hit the right flank of Satish. When Satish reached in front of Vinod Barber shop, accused Taqdir (expired) came out from a lane and exhorted that he would teach him (Satish) a lesson for making the bathroom. Thereafter, accused Taqdir fired a shot, which hit the right flank of Satish. In the meanwhile, Satish turned and then appellant Ajit fired a shot, which hit the left arm of Satish. 13. Accused Taqdir was armed with .303/.315 bore country made pistol Ex. P-2, while appellant was armed with .12 bore country made pistol Ex. P-1. As per Dr. Gulshan Arora PW-5, who examined Satish on 23.5.1994, vide MLR Ex. PG and found a lacerated wound on the right hypothondrium. Multiple small lacerations of the size of .5 cm x .2 cm were found around the wound. There was blackening around the margins of the wounds. He (PW-5) has further stated, that injured Satish refused to make a statement to the police in his presence. On further enquiry by Dr. Gulshan Arora PW-5, Satish stated that due to darkness, he could not recognise the assailants. Dr. Nidhi Jain PW-9 conducted the post- mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 24.5.2004 and found four injuries on the person of Satish. Significantly, she (PW-9) extracted a yellow brown metallic bullet from the subcutaneous tissues over the back at the level of middle of the first segment of sacrum. Dr. Nidhi Jain PW-9 has further stated, that there was only one gun shot injury on the body of the deceased i.e. injury No. 2. She opened a sealed parcel bearing the seals of FSL, which contained bullet Ex. P-13, which had been recovered from the body of the deceased. She has further stated, that except for injury No. 2, all other injuries were surgical wounds. Injury No. 2 was a gun shot injury. As per Randhir Singh PW-3 and Anil PW-4, appellant Ajit had given a .12 bore pistol injury on the left arm of Satish deceased. Both Dr. Gulshan Arora PW-5 and Dr. Nidhi Jain PW-9 have not seen any injury on the left arm of Satish deceased. Accused Taqdir (expired) was carrying a .303/.315 bore country made pistol Ex. P-2. He is the one, who fired at the deceased and the metallic bullet recovered had been fired from the pistol of accused Taqdir. The medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account qua appellant Ajit. 14. Accused Taqdir (expired) was carrying a .303/.315 bore country made pistol Ex. P-2. He is the one, who fired at the deceased and the metallic bullet recovered had been fired from the pistol of accused Taqdir. The medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account qua appellant Ajit. 14. Occurrence had taken place on 23.5.1994 at 7.30 p.m. Dr. Gulshan Arora PW-5 has stated, that from the original Police Information Book, a ruqa was sent at 11.15 p.m. on 23.5.1994. Police received the ruqa at 12.00 mid night, copy of ruqa is Ex. PG-1. Statement Ex. PE of Randhir Singh PW-3 was recorded on 24.5.1994 at 8.15 a.m. and the FIR Ex. PE/1 came into existence at 9.20 a.m. on the same day. The special report reached the JMIC Bahadurgarh, on 24.5.1994 at 3.25 p.m. Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly argued, that there is an unexplained delay of 14 hours in recording of the FIR and the special report reaching the JMIC after six hours. The total delay from the occurrence till the special report reaching the JMIC is 20 hours. No explanation has come forward as to when the police had received the ruqa sent by the doctor. It was sent at 12.00 mid night. No explanation is coming forward as to why the statement of Randhir Singh PW-3 was recorded at 8.15 a.m. on 24.5.1994. Dr. Gulshan Arora PW-5 has emphatically stated, that deceased Satish told him on enquiry that he could not recognise the assailants, as it was night time. With the above observations and discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused/appellant. The benefit of doubt is given to appellant Ajit son of Raja Ram. Appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge.