Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 674 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Gurmukh Singh

2007-03-26

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, H.S.BHALLA

body2007
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the State against acquittal of the respondents, while convicting co-accused balbir Singh @ Bheera and Amir Singh. Case of the prosecution is that on 03.02.2003 at 12 noon, mohinder Singh (deceased) was going in the street of the village with fodder on his head. Near water tank, accused Balbir Singh @ Bheera, amar Singh, Raju, Avtar Singh, Sonu and Gurmukh Singh came with gandasis, Barchhis and Gandasas. Accused Bheera gave a lalkara to teach a lesson to Mohinder Singh for making secret information 2. Against them to the police. All the accused started causing injuries with their respective weapons. Bheera gave a Gandasi blow on his right hand, Amir Singh gave a gandasi blow on his left hand, Sonu gave a gandasi blow on his left shoulder, Raju gave a gandasi blow on his left leg, Avtar Singh inflicted a Barchhi blow on his right leg and gurmukh Singh gave a gandasi blow on left side of his back. Mohinder Singh raised alarm, on which, Balkar Singh and Kartar singh were attracted, who rescued him from the accused persons. Mohinder Singh was admitted to Community Health Centre, Shahbad. Thereafter, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he died on 12.12.2003. FIR was registered on the statement of Balkar Singh, eyewitness. 3. During investigation, Raju, Gurmukh Singh, Sonu and avtar Singh were declared to be innocent and only Balbir Singh and amir Singh were challaned. However, after recording the statement of balkar Singh, eyewitness, other co-accused were also summoned under Sec.319 Cr. P. C. Sonu and Avtar Sigh, being juvenile, were sent to Juvenile Justice Board while four other accused were tried together, out of whom two have been convicted and two acquitted, as mentioned above. 4. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses namely, Dr. Ravinder Nath, Medical Officer, PW-1, Dr. Yoginder S. Bansal, PW-2, constable Gurdial Singh, PW-3, Kartar Singh, PW-4, Inderjeet Singh, pw-5, Sunil Dutt, MHC, PW-6, Gurvinder Singh, PW-7, ASI Didar mashih, PW-8, Isham Singh, EHC, PW-9, Kartar Singh, ASI/io, PW- 5. Criminal Misc. No.60-MA of 2007 10, SI Paras Kumar, PW-11, Mukesh Kumar HC/draftsman, PW-12 and Parmeshwari Kumar, EHC, PW-13. The accused denied the prosecution allegations. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted Balbir Singh @ Bheera and Amir Singh and acquitted the respondents. Criminal Misc. No.60-MA of 2007 10, SI Paras Kumar, PW-11, Mukesh Kumar HC/draftsman, PW-12 and Parmeshwari Kumar, EHC, PW-13. The accused denied the prosecution allegations. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted Balbir Singh @ Bheera and Amir Singh and acquitted the respondents. Observations of the trial Court can be summarized as under:- (i) Balkar Singh, eyewitness died during the trial before his evidence could be completely recorded. (ii) PW-4 Kartar Singh did not support the prosecution version. (iii) PW-5 Inderjeet Singh, eyewitness, brother of the deceased and PW-7 Gurvinder Singh, son of the deceased, supported the prosecution case. (iv) No weapon was recovered from the respondents. (v) Presence of PW-5 Inderjeet Singh was not established beyond reasonable doubt, on account of contradictions and on account of his statement having been recorded belatedly. (vi) Oral declaration made by the deceased to his son gurvinder Singh (PW-7) was fully proved. (vii) In absence of recovery of any weapon from the respondents, they were entitled to benefit of doubt. We have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the findings of the trial Court. 6 Criminal Misc. No.60-MA of 2007 the trial Court has not believed the testimony of PW-5 inderjeet Singh while Balkar Singh died before his evidence could be completed. Only evidence left before the Court was dying declaration proved by Gurvinder Singh (PW-7) and recovery of weapons apart from medical and formal evidence. Since no weapon was recovered from the respondents, while weapons were recovered from the convicted co-accused, the trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the respondents. This approach has not been shown to be perverse in any way, having regard to the evidence on record. Scope of appeal against acquittal has been gone into by the Honble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Jaswant Singh V/s. 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 Jaswant Singh V/s. State of haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1833shivaji sahabrao Bobade V/s. State of Maharashtra, (1973 2 SCC 793: AIR 1973 SC 2622: (1973 Cri LJ 1783) ). If the order is clearly unreasonable it is a compelling reason for interference (see Jaswant Singh V/s. State of haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1833shivaji sahabrao Bobade V/s. State of Maharashtra, (1973 2 SCC 793: AIR 1973 SC 2622: (1973 Cri LJ 1783) ). The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi V/s. 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. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for 7 Criminal Misc. No.60-MA of 2007 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. In view of above, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.