Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1135 (PNJ)

Dalbir Singh v. Ranjit Singh

2007-05-15

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, S.N.AGGARWAL

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. This order will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.426 DBA of 1997, challenging acquittal of respondents Ranjit Singh, Amarjit Singh, Jinder Singh, Tarsem Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Megha Singh, of the charge of murder of Sukhwinder Singh son of Dalbir Singh, appellant and Criminal Misc.No.385 MA of 1997 for leave to appeal to challenge acquittal of respondents Dalbir Singh and Jaswinder Singh of the charge of murder of Raghbir Singh, as both the matters arise out of same incident. 2. Case of the prosecution, in FIR No.231 dated 2.7.1988 registered on the statement of Dalbir Singh PW5 is that Dalbir Singh had land dispute with the accused party who were his relations. On 1.7.1988, his son Sukhvinder Singh, deceased irrigated the land which was objected to by his brother Raghbir Singh, deceased and his son which led to quarrel. With the intervention of neighbours, the quarrel was ended. On 2.7.1988 at 7/8 AM, Raghbir Singh, deceased and his son wanted to irrigate the land which was objected to by Sukhwinder Singh, deceased. Raghbir Singh, his two sons and his servant Sukhvinder Singh armed with ‘gandasi’, ‘barchhi’ and ‘lathi’ came to the field, while Sukhvinder Singh, deceased armed with his licensed gun went in a tractor trolley. Dalbir Singh also went behind. He heard sound of gun fire and also heard the voice ‘Pakro Pakro’ (catch-catch). He saw that Amarjit Singh, Ranjit Singh, Megha Singh and Jinder Singh armed with ‘gandasis’ were running after Sukhwinder Singh, deceased while servant of Raghbir Singh was standing on the side of the field with a ‘lathi. He saw his son Sukhvinder Singh, deceased running and then Amarjit Singh struck ‘gandasi’ on his neck on which he fell down. Amarjit Singh with ‘gandasi’, Ranjit Singh with ‘barchhi’ and Megha Singh with ‘lathi’ continued striking the deceased. When Sukhvinder Singh died, Ranjit Singh lifted the gun of Sukhwinder Singh and broke it. After hearing the gun fire, Jinder Singh came from his field followed by his brother Tarsem and after seeing Raghbir Singh and Sukhvinder Singh dead, they went away. Amarjit Singh, Ranjit Singh, Megha Singh and Sukhwinder Singh went towards the village with their weapons. Dalbir Singh went to the spot. Bhola Singh, brother-inlaw of deceased Sukhwinder Singh also came there. Baljit Singh also came to the spot and other people of the village also came there. Amarjit Singh, Ranjit Singh, Megha Singh and Sukhwinder Singh went towards the village with their weapons. Dalbir Singh went to the spot. Bhola Singh, brother-inlaw of deceased Sukhwinder Singh also came there. Baljit Singh also came to the spot and other people of the village also came there. Neck and leg of Sukhvinder Singh had been cut off with ‘gandasi’ and there was huge bleeding. At the distance of 20/25 steps, Raghbir Singh, deceased was lying hit with bullet in his chest and bleeding was taking place. Gun of Sukhvinder Singh, deceased was lying in broken condition and two empty cartridges and two live cartridges were lying there. Dalbir Singh left Baljit Singh and others near the dead bodies and went to the police station for lodging the report. This statement was recorded by Rajpal Singh ASI DW1. On this statement, FIR Ex.PJ was registered. 3. Apart from lodging the FIR, Dalbir Singh complainant also filed a complaint Ex.PD alleging that police was not taking further action in the matter. The Area Magistrate summoned the accused and committed the case to the Court of Session. The Court of Session directed that the complaint be clubbed with the State case. 4. Complaint case and police case were tried together as Session Case No.48 of 1991 and Session Trial No.42 of 1992. The trial court held that the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further details of the findings recorded by the trial court will be discussed in the later part of the judgment under the heading ‘Re: Murder of Sukhwinder Singh’. 5. The prosecution examined PW1 Krishan Lal, complaint Clerk Office of SP Kurukshetra, PW2 Dr. SK Singhla, PW3 Dr. DP Gupta, PW4 Subhash Chander Reader to SDM Guhla, PW5 Dalbir Singh and PW6 Raghbir Singh, alleged eye witnesses. 6. Cross case was filed by Amarjit Singh relating to the murder of his father Raghbir Singh in the same occurrence, which was tried as Session case No.47 of 1991 and Session Trial No.44 of 1992 and decided on the same day by the same court. Allegations in the complaint filed by Amarjit Singh are that Dalbir Singh, his son Sukhvinder Singh, deceased and his son Jaswinder Singh had land dispute with Raghbir Singh, deceased. Allegations in the complaint filed by Amarjit Singh are that Dalbir Singh, his son Sukhvinder Singh, deceased and his son Jaswinder Singh had land dispute with Raghbir Singh, deceased. On 2.7.1988, accused Dalbir Singh and Jaswinder Singh armed with one ‘gandasi’ each and accused Sukhwinder Singh armed with a gun came to the land at 7 AM and declared that they would plant paddy in the land by use of force. Raghbir Singh asked them not to do so. The accused attacked Raghbir Singh. Dalbir Singh and Jaswinder Singh gave ‘gandasi’ blow on the forearm of Raghbir Singh causing fracture. He defended himself and caused injuries to Sukhwinder Singh with his ‘kirpan’. He raised alarm which attracted Fakiria son of Bishna, Amarjit Singh complainant and his brother Ranjit Singh who tried to save Raghbir Singh but Fakiria was given injuries by blunt side of ‘gandasi’ by Dalbir Singh. Sukhwinder Singh loaded his gun and fired two shots hitting Raghbir Singh on his left chest and abdomen. Raghbir Singh fell down. Some blows were given to Sukhwinder Singh by Amarjit Singh and his brother Ranjit Singh with ‘gandasi’ so that he may not re-load the gun. Gun of Sukhwinder Singh was also broken during defence. Accused ran away. Sukhwinder Singh fell down at some distance, while others escaped. His father died on the spot. Amarjit Singh and his brother Ranjit Singh went to the police station but the police did not take any action and they were not allowed by the police to contact anyone and kept in illegal confinement till 17.7.1988 when they were produced before the court and remanded to judicial custody. 7. The prosecution examined PW1 Dr. SK Singhal, PW2 Dr. DP Gupta, PW3 Dr. Rajinder Goel, PW4 Ranjit Singh, PW5 Amarjit Singh, PW6 Bhupinder Singh and PW7 Rajpal Singh SI. 8. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court held that the case of the prosecution that accused Dalbir Singh and Jaswinder Singh caused the murder of Raghbir Singh, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them. Further findings of the trial court will be discussed in the later part of the judgment under the heading ‘Re: Murder of Raghbir Singh”. 9. Findings of the trial court regarding the murder of Sukhwinder Singh may now be noticed. Re: Murder of Sukhwinder Singh: 10. Further findings of the trial court will be discussed in the later part of the judgment under the heading ‘Re: Murder of Raghbir Singh”. 9. Findings of the trial court regarding the murder of Sukhwinder Singh may now be noticed. Re: Murder of Sukhwinder Singh: 10. The trial court held that though, FIR was lodged by Dalbir Singh on 2.7.1988, complaint was filed on 18.7.1988 i.e., after 16 days after making some improvements. In the complaint case, allegations were made against Megha Singh, accused for the first time and the version given in the complaint case was different. In the State case, no motive was alleged against Tarsem Singh and Jinder Singh, accused was not challaned in the State case. Motive alleged for assault on Sukhwinder Singh was not proved. It was further observed that evidence of PW5 Dalbir Singh was contradictory about the manner of occurrence. He had given version in court which was contrary to his statement Ex.PJ/1 which had led to registration of FIR. In his statement in court, he stated that Raghbir Singh, deceased died on account of firing by Jinder Singh, accused and that Megha Singh, accused caused ‘gandasi’ blow on the leg of Raghbir Singh. Raghbir Singh PW6, son-in-law of Dalbir Singh contradicted Dalbir Singh. There are material contradictions given by him and Dalbir Singh. There being no satisfactory and reliable evidence about the manner of occurrence, the accused were given benefit of doubt. 11. The findings regarding murder of Raghbir Singh may now be noticed. Re: Murder of Raghbir Singh 12. Complaint filed by Amarjit Singh regarding murder of Raghbir Singh was on 30.7.1988 i.e., 28 days after the occurrence. Explanation for the delay that they were in custody, was not enough as they were meeting other relatives and nothing prevented them from presenting their version before the court. Motive alleged was not strong enough for the murder of Raghbir Singh. Regarding the manner of occurrence deposed to by PW5 Amarjit Singh and PW4 Ranjit Singh, it was observed that the version given by them was not reliable. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the trial court. 14. Motive alleged was not strong enough for the murder of Raghbir Singh. Regarding the manner of occurrence deposed to by PW5 Amarjit Singh and PW4 Ranjit Singh, it was observed that the version given by them was not reliable. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the trial court. 14. On either side, one person each died but the witnesses gave coloured version putting the blame on the other side and in absence of reliable version, both the versions have been found by the trial court to be not believable. We are unable to hold that the findings recorded by the trial court with regard to both the cases can be held to be perverse or unreasonable. The view taken in both the cases by the trial court is a possible view on the available evidence. Evidence on both the sides has been held to be partisan and contradictory. Both the sides have tried to conceal the truth and genesis of occurrence. In these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the acquittal in both the cross cases. 15. Scope of appeal against acquittal has been gone into by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1833, wherein it was observed:- “21. The principle to be followed by appellate courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable it is a compelling reason for interference (see Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973 2 SCC 793: AIR 1973 SC 2622: (1973 Cri LJ 1783)). The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225: 1996 AIR SCW 2438: AIR 1996 SC 2035 (1996 Cri LJ 2867): “While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions.” 16. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.426 DBA of 1997 and Crl.M.No.385 MA of 1997 are dismissed. —————————