Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2255 (PNJ)

Dhian Singh v. State Of Punjab

2006-05-19

T.P.S.MANN

body2006
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. Appellant-Dhian Singh was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur under Sections 392 and 307/ 34, IPC. He was sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 under Section 392, IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further RI for three months. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 under Section 307/34, IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further RI for one month. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 8-3-1986 at about 3.30 p.m., Subash Chander PW-5 was present at Taxi Stand, Hoshiarpur with an Ambassador Car No. PUJ 5674, which he used to ply as a taxi. The accused and one clean shaven person came there and represented that the wife of the clean shaven person was admitted in Military Hospital, Pathankot and she was to be brought from there to Hoshiarpur. The clean shaven person further represented himself to be an army personnel and stated that his wife was to deliver a child. After settling the hire charges at Rs. 350.00 , the accused took a sum of Rs. 200.00 from his companion and handed over the same to Subash Chander. The accused and the other person sealed themselves in the car. Subash Chander drove the car to Military Hospital, Pathankot, where they reached at about 7.00 p.m. The accused went inside the Military Hospital, but came back within 5/7 minutes to tell his companion that his wife had gone to village Ranipur. Both of them asked Subash Chander to take them to village Ranipur. Reaching Ranipur, they stopped near a narrow lane. Then also the accused went inside the lane and came back a little later to tell his companion and Subash Chander that the condition of the wife of his companion had worsened and she had again been taken to Military Hospital, Pathankot. All of them proceeded to Pathankot. At about 7.30 p.m., when they had travelled a distance of about 1 1/2 kilometers from Ranipur in the car, the clean shaven person, who was sitting on the rear seat took out a knife and gave a blow in the abdomen of Subash Chander. All of them proceeded to Pathankot. At about 7.30 p.m., when they had travelled a distance of about 1 1/2 kilometers from Ranipur in the car, the clean shaven person, who was sitting on the rear seat took out a knife and gave a blow in the abdomen of Subash Chander. He gave another blow which landed on the left hand of Subash Chander. The accused pushed Subash Chander outside the car and thereafter, both of them sped away in the car towards Madhopur. Alarm raised by Subash Chander attracted Sukhpal Singh PW-6, who took him to Civil Hospital, Pathankot. Dr. Som Dutt Sharma PW-2 sent an intimation Ex.PB to the Police, stating therein that the condition of Subash Chander was very serious and he was being referred to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. On receiving the intimation, HC Prem Dass reached Civil Hospital, Pathankot and after seeking opinion from the doctor about the fitness of Subash Chander to make statement, recorded his statement Ex.PE at 9.45 p.m., on the same day. On the basis of the said statement of Subash Chander, formal FIR Ex.PE/1 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Pathankot. 3. After registration of the case, investigation was taken up by SI Harbhajan Singh PW-11, who went to the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex.PL. A naka was set up, thereafter, at Sarna Chowk. At about 10.30 p.m., an Ambassador Car bearing No. PUJ 5674 was seen coming from the side of Madhopur. A signal was given by the. police party to the driver of the car to stop, but the driver made an attempt to speed away. A chase was given by the police party, which after covering a distance of 1 1/2 kilometers from Sarna Chowk towards Gurdaspur was able to stop the car, when it turned towards the left side of the road on kacha portion. The accused and the other person came out of the car. It was revealed that the accused was driving the car at that time, whereas the clean shaven person was sitting on the rear seat. However, in the process, the clean shaven person made good his escape from the spot, whereas the accused was apprehended. The car was taken into possession. A Jhola Ex.P5, containing a tiffen carrier, four cassettes and some other articles were also seized from the car. However, in the process, the clean shaven person made good his escape from the spot, whereas the accused was apprehended. The car was taken into possession. A Jhola Ex.P5, containing a tiffen carrier, four cassettes and some other articles were also seized from the car. A VIP bag Ex.P4 containing a blanket, shirt and chadar etc. was also taken into possession. The accused was formally taken into custody. 4. On 16-3-1986 blood-stained shirt and kachha of Subash Chander injured were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PE. These were, then sent to Chemical Examiner, who found the blood-stains on them. These were further sent to Serologist, who gave opinion that the stains were of human blood. 5. After the completion of the investigation, challan was presented and the case was committed to the Court of Session by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur on 21-6-1986. 6. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 392, 397 and 307/34, IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. Dr. Inderjit Khanna PW-1, proved operation notes Ex. PA in respect of Subash Chander. Dr. Som Datt Sharma PW-2 stated that the injured was brought to Civil Hospital, Pathankot as a case of multiple injuries, but as his condition was serious and accordingly, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, He sent an intimation Ex.PB to the police. He declared Subash Chander fit to make statement vide his endorsement Ex.PC/1 on police application Ex.PC. Finally, he gave opinion, Ex.PD, on the basis of operation notes that the injury on the person of Subash Chander was dangerous to life. 8. HC Prem Dass PW-3 deposed about handling of the case property. C. Joga Singh PW-4 tendered his affidavit in evidence. Complainant-Subash Chander PW-5 deposed about the incident in which he was given injuries by the accused and his vehicle, thereafter, taken away by them. He identified the appellant as the accused. Sukhpal Singh PW-6 deposed that he took the injured to Civil Hospital, Pathankot. HC Rajinder Kumar PW-7 deposed about the arrest of the appellant. Baklev Raj Patwari PW S proved site plan Ex.PK. HC Prem Dass, who was earlier examined as PW-3 was again examined as PW-9. He proved slip Ex.PB from Civil Hospital, Pathankot and recording of statement Ex.PE by him of Subash Chancier-injured. HC Rajinder Kumar PW-7 deposed about the arrest of the appellant. Baklev Raj Patwari PW S proved site plan Ex.PK. HC Prem Dass, who was earlier examined as PW-3 was again examined as PW-9. He proved slip Ex.PB from Civil Hospital, Pathankot and recording of statement Ex.PE by him of Subash Chancier-injured. Darshan Singh PW-10 deposed about the admission of the injured in S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar on 9-3-1986 and his discharge from there on 18-3-1986. SI Harbhajan Singh PW-11 was the main Investigating Officer in the case, who deposed about the apprehension of the accused along with the car on 8-3-1986 at 10.30 p.m. He recorded the statement of various witnesses during the. investigation of the case. Rajinder Pal Singh PW-12, deposed about the ownership of the car in question in the name of Subash Chander. Gurdip Singh PW-13, Pal Singh PW-14, HC Rajinder Kumar PW-15 and HC Rattan Singh PW-16 tendered their affidavits in evidence. 9. SI Beant Ram PW-17 deposed that on 19-6-1986 he made an application Ex.PL/1 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur for holding test identification parade of the accused. The accused made statement that he did not want to join the parade. On the said statement Ex.PJ/1 made by the accused, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur passed an order Ex.PK/1. 10. After tendering into evidence, the report of Chemical Examiner and also that of Serologist, the prosecution closed its evidence. 11. The statement of the accused was, thereafter, recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution against him. He pleaded false implication. 12. In his defence, he examined Bachan Lal DW-1, who stated that the accused was taken away by the police from his house in the village and on his intervention, the police party assured that the accused would be let off and there was nothing against him. 13. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, as well as for the State. 14. Though the appellant was not named in the FIR, yet complainant-Subash Chander PW-5 had sufficient opportunity to see him from a close range and then to make a mental picture of his appearance and description. He was seated in the car by his side. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, as well as for the State. 14. Though the appellant was not named in the FIR, yet complainant-Subash Chander PW-5 had sufficient opportunity to see him from a close range and then to make a mental picture of his appearance and description. He was seated in the car by his side. While appearing in the Court as PW-5, Subash Chander unequivocally stated that it was the accused who hired his taxi and travelled with him from Hoshiarpur to Pathankot and from Pathankot to Ranipur and then from Ranipur towards Pathankot. Mere fact that the trial Court did not attach any significance to the case of the prosecution that the accused was presented before Chief Judicial Magistrate. Gurdaspur on 19-6-1986 for test identification parade, at a belated stage, was no ground to hold that the prosecution failed in its duty to establish the identity of the appellant as an accused. 15. Certain discrepancies and contradictions have been pointed by the learned defence counsel, besides improvements made by Subash Chander PW-5 over his original version given to the police. To my mind, these discrepancies and contractions are so minor in nature that no importance can be attached to them. The prosecution case cannot be thrown out only on the ground that there were certain contradictions and discrepancies. Regarding improvements, one can say that while making statement before the police, the witness did not make a detailed statement, which he later on made while appearing in the Court. In fact these cannot be technically termed as improvements, but are minor omissions, which were made by the witness while making statement before the police. The version given by Subash Chander PW-5 has been corroborated by Sukhpal Singh PW-6, who reached the spot after hearing alarm being raised by the former. 16. The apprehension of the accused and recovery of the car from his possession has further corroborated the case of the prosecution. The car in question was owned by Subash Chander PW-5. This fact: was proved from the testimony of Rajinder Singh PW-12, who stated that the Ambassador Car stood registered in the name of Subash Chander. 16. The apprehension of the accused and recovery of the car from his possession has further corroborated the case of the prosecution. The car in question was owned by Subash Chander PW-5. This fact: was proved from the testimony of Rajinder Singh PW-12, who stated that the Ambassador Car stood registered in the name of Subash Chander. Mere fact, that the number of the car was not mentioned, when the same was taken into possession by the police was no ground to hold that the recovery memo was prepared first and the car recovered later on. 17. The prosecution case has also been assailed that no attempt was made by the police to either arrest the So-called companion of the accused or to trace him out. The car in which the accused and his companion were travelling was stopped at about 10.30 p.m. on 8-3-1986. Taking advantage of the darkness around the companion of the accused was able to escape from the spot. SI Harbhajan Singh PW-11 stated that no shot was fired on the companion of the accused, who was able to flee from there. However, he was categoric enough to state that no footprints could be traced of the said companion of the accused. This shows that some effort was made by the prosecution to apprehend the fleeing companion of the appellant. It is another fact that he could not. be arrested or at-least traced by the police. 18. There is no legal infirmity of lacuna in the prosecution case, from which it can be said that the guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment of conviction is, accordingly, upheld. 19. Coming to the question of sentence, it may be noticed that the occurrence had taken place in the year, 1986. According to the prosecution, the appellant was not armed with any weapon. It was his companion, who was carrying a knife, which he wielded to give injuries to Subash Chander PW-5. In the entire occurrence, the only role attributed to the appellant was of pushing Subash Chander PW-5 out. of the car and then he along with his companion speeding away in the said car. The appellant remained in custody for 3 1/2 months during the trial and another similar period during the pendency of the appeal. In the entire occurrence, the only role attributed to the appellant was of pushing Subash Chander PW-5 out. of the car and then he along with his companion speeding away in the said car. The appellant remained in custody for 3 1/2 months during the trial and another similar period during the pendency of the appeal. In these circumstances, it is a fit case for the reduction of sentence of the appellant under Section 392, IPC. Accordingly, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant under Section 392, IPC from RI for five years to RI for three years. The amount of fine imposed along with the default clause under the said count is, however, affirmed. The sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed upon the appellant under Section 307/34, IPC are also maintained. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment under Sections 392 and 307/34, IPC shall run concurrently. 20. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the modification in the sentence as indicated above.