Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 78 (PNJ)

Navroop Kaur v. Kashmir Singh

2006-01-10

UMA NATH SINGH

body2006
Judgment Uma Nath Singh, J. 1. This Crl. Revision arises out of a judgment dated 8.12.2003 in Crl. Case No. 119/1 of 2000 (FIR No. 57 dated 23.4.1999 registered under Sections 435 and 427 IPC at Police Station Phillaur) recording acquittal of the respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that acquittal has been recorded mainly on the ground that the name of Kamaljit Singh (PW-4); who was harvesting wheat crop with his carbine at the time of incident, is not mentioned in the FIR. Learned counsel further submitted that both the parties also have a background of a protracted civil litigation over the property and, therefore, there was a motive for commission of offence. Learned counsel also submitted that since the parties were negotiating a compromise, therefore, the FIR was lodged after two days of the incident only on 23.4.1999. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the evidence of Balwinder Singh (P.W-2) to argue that he admitted the presence of Jarnail Singh, Sarpanch, as well as Navroop Kaur, complainant (PW-1) on the spot. Learned counsel also submitted, that though the name of PW-4 was not mentioned in the FIR but Balwinder Singh (PW-2) has clarified that PW-4 was harvesting his crop with his combine in his adjoining field. According to learned counsel, PW-4 has fully supported the prosecution case and he is an important witness of the incident Learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of Honble the Apex Court in support of his contentions. In the case of Sunil Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1997(1) All India Criminal LR (S.C.) 598, learned counsel referred to para 19 to argue that even in a case where information was given to the police and the names of the accused persons were not disclosed, that lapse was not found to affect the credibility of the testimony of a witness, in the second judgment referred to by learned counsel, namely, Manoj alias Bhau v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1999(2) RCR (Cri.) 347, the contention of the defence that the FIR was too sketchy was not accepted by the Court. The Honble Court held that the FIR need not be an encyclopedia of the evidence and what is required to be stated is the basic prosecution case. 3. The Honble Court held that the FIR need not be an encyclopedia of the evidence and what is required to be stated is the basic prosecution case. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Jarnail Singh, said to be present on the spot, was not cited as a witness; that Balwinder Singh (PW-2) has stated that the incident of fire took place due to sparks coming out of the combine machine; and that Shinghara Singh (DW-1) has clearly stated that his field had caught the fire first. Learned counsel also submitted that Kamaljit Singh (PW-4), an important witness, was not referred to in the FIR and the police after proper investigation had filed a cancellation report in favour of the accused respondents, however, the charge-sheet was filed only on the direction of the Court. Learned counsel also submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised only in exceptional cases and cited a judgment of Honble the Apex Court reported in 2004(3) All India Criminal LR (S.C.) 779 (Ram Baksh Singh and others v. Ambika Yadav and another) in support of this contention. 4. On due consideration of rival submissions. I do not notice any infirmity in the impugned judgment leading to miscarriage of justice. It appears from the records that there was a background of civil litigation between the parties, which may be motive for a false case particularly in view of the evidence of Shinghara Singh (DW-1) that the incident of fire did not take place first in the field of the complainant but rather in his adjoining field. It is also noticed that Balwinder Singh (PW-2) has mentioned the presence of Jarnail Singh, Sarpanch on the spot but he has not been cited as a witness PW-2 has also mentioned that the fire was caused by the sparks of the combine which was being used for harvesting the crop and, therefore, the accused cannot be held liable for setting the crop on fire with a match stick. It also appears that the factum of compromise being negotiated between the parties was also not mentioned in the FIR. Thus, there was no plausible explanation for delay in lodging the report Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to some observations of the trial Court in support of his contention that PW-4 is an important witness. It also appears that the factum of compromise being negotiated between the parties was also not mentioned in the FIR. Thus, there was no plausible explanation for delay in lodging the report Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to some observations of the trial Court in support of his contention that PW-4 is an important witness. But since his name was not mentioned in the FIR, the trial Court has rightly not relied upon his evidence. Absence of his name in the FIR which was lodged with delay rules out his presence on the spot. Evidence of PW-4 does not inspire confidence for another reason also PW-2 has stated about his presence on the spot out he has also stated that this incident was only an accident. Besides, the police had filed a cancellation report after proper investigations. A challan was put up later on only under the directions of the Court. The impugned judgment of acquittal appears to be quite reasonable. There is no infirmity so as to exercise the revisional powers of this Court. 5. Hence, this Cri. Revision (No. 641 of 2004) being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.