Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2460 (PNJ)

Satnam Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-08-27

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment/ order dated 12.7.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, (for short `the Trial Court), whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted for the offence punsihable under Sections 326 and 450 of IPC and accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 = years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and for the offence under Section 450 of IPC, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts, as noticed by the Trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, are re-produced as under :"2. The statement of injured/complainant Ram Singh (PW 4), in brief, is that the said complainant was adopted by one Surjit Singh resident of village Chuhar Chak where he stayed with him as his adopted son for about three years. However, he started serving at a Gurudwara at village Chuhar Chak and when one Gursewak Singh became the Sewadar of Gurudwara he purchased some property in the said village on which he constructed a small house and started residing therein alongwith his wife Harjit Kaur and one Jaswinder Singh alias Jinder, who also used to help him in maintaining the sewa & rahat of Shri Guru Granth Sahib which he kept in a room of his said house. That on 14.2.1997 at about 7.00 p.m. accused Satnam Singh, who was got engaged by the complainant to a girl belonging to Zira, reached there and demanded from him the joint photograph of his wife as well as a girl to whom the accused was engaged. But the complainant put the matter off on which accused at once took out a `Kapa from his dub and attacked him with the same. But the complainant put the matter off on which accused at once took out a `Kapa from his dub and attacked him with the same. Accused inflicted a kapa blow on the complainant but when he tried to ward off the blow by raising his left hand, the kapa struck on the palm of his hand and the other `kapa blow given by the accused also hit the complainant on the palmer side of his left hand and the third blow given by the accused with his `kapa hit the complainant on his left hand thumb and wrist joint, on which the complainant in order to save himself tried to run away from his residential house, but when he reached a slight distance from his house he fell down into a water course on which the accused, who was pursuing him, again inflicted a `kapa blow on his person which hit him on his left shoulder and another `kapa blow given by him also hit the complainant on his left arm. In the meanwhile complainants wife Harjit Kaur and said Jaswinder Singh alias Jinder also reached there while raising an alarm, on which the accused fled away alongwith the kapa. Sh.Lachhman Singh, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Chuhar Chak also reached the spot and he rushed the injuredcomplainant to Civil Hospital, Zira, where he was got admitted and was medico-legally examined on the same day at about 8.40 p.m. by Dr.Lakhwinder Singh (PW 1) who vide his M.L.R., Ex. P1 found and declared the following five injuries :- 1. An incised wound 13 x 3 cm present on the palmer aspect of left hand extending from base of little finger to the first wob space. Fresh bleeding was present. Injury was kept for observation for x-ray and surgeons opinion; 2. An incise wound 3.75 x 1 cm present on the front aspect of left forearm on the wrist joint placed obliquely. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised x-ray. 3. An incised wound 2 x 0.25 cm present on the lateral aspect of left thumb in its middle. Fresh bleeding present. Advised x-ray; 4. An incised wound 4 x 1 cm present on the postero medial aspect of left forearm, placed obliquely in its middle third, fresh bleeding present. Advised x-ray. Corresponding cut on the shirt and koti present. 5. An incised wound 2 x 0.25 cm present on the lateral aspect of left thumb in its middle. Fresh bleeding present. Advised x-ray; 4. An incised wound 4 x 1 cm present on the postero medial aspect of left forearm, placed obliquely in its middle third, fresh bleeding present. Advised x-ray. Corresponding cut on the shirt and koti present. 5. An incised wound 7 x 1.5 cm present on the left scapular region 6 cm below the tip of shoulder. Placed obliquely. Fresh bleeding present. Injury kept under observation for x-ray. Corresponding cut on the overlying clothes i.e. shirt, sweater and banyan was present. On his person all resultant from sharp edged weapon. Most of the said injuries were also got x-rayed from Dr.P.S.Sona (PW 2) who furnished his x-ray report Ex. PX as well as the skiagrams Ex. P7 to Ex. P9 on the basis of which vide report Ex. P3 (PW 1) declared injuries No. 1 and 5 as grievous in nature while the remaining injuries No. 2 to 4 were found to be simple. The matter was also reported to Police Station, Zira on which statement Ex. P14 of the complainant was recorded by ASI Jugraj Sngh which formed the basis of formal FIR registered against the accused on the same day at serial No. 14 for an offence punishable u/s 326/324/452 IPC and the machinery of law was set into motion. Investigation into this case was conducted by said ASI Jugraj Singh who procured the medicolegal report, x-ray report as well as the skiagrams and also recorded the statement of the witnesses. He also seized the blood stained clothes worn by the injured/complainant at the relevant time. Accused wasalso arrested and on the basis of his disclosure statement Ex. P11, the kapa, the weapon of offence was also recovered and taken into possession through a recovery memo Ex. P13 and after the completion of necessary investigation police report against the accused was filed before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Zira on 2.5.1997." 3. The accused/appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 450/326 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. P13 and after the completion of necessary investigation police report against the accused was filed before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Zira on 2.5.1997." 3. The accused/appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 450/326 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, namely, Dr.Lakhwinder Singh, who medico-legally examined the injured/complainant on 14.2.1997 as PW 1; Dr.Pritam Singh Sona, who proved on record x-ray report, Exhibit PX, Skiagrams, Exhibit P7 to Exhibit P9 etc. as PW 2; Constable Tarsem Singh, who attested the disclosure statement, Exhibit P11 as PW 3; injured/complainant Ram Singh as PW 4; Constable Major Singh as PW 5 and MHC Savinder Singh as PW 6. 5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the accused claimed to be innocent and alleged that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. 6. After hearing both the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court, the accused/appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. The present appeal was admitted on 25.7.2002. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the statement of the injured/complainant Ram Singh, PW 4 is vitiated by material discrepancies, improvements and infirmities. He has further argued that the eye witnesses, namely, Harjit Kaur and Jaswinder Singh @ Jinder have not been examined and were given up as having won over. 9. It has further been argued that from the statement of Ram Singh, PW 4, the offence under Section 450 of IPC is not made out because in his statement, he has stated that he alongwith Jaswant Singh was present on the land purchased by him and accused/appellant came over there and inflicted injuries, whereas in the FIR, he has stated that the appellant had come to his house and inflicted injuries. 10. It has also been argued that from the statement, Exhibit P14, of Ram Singh, it is proved that the same was ante dated. 10. It has also been argued that from the statement, Exhibit P14, of Ram Singh, it is proved that the same was ante dated. During the deposition made before the Trial Court, Ram Singh, PW 4, has stated that he was unconscious when he was shifted to hospital and regained consciousness after 15 days of the occurrence. Thereafter, the police came to the hospital and recorded his statement. However, FIR was recorded on the basis of his statement on 15.2.1997. 11. The learned counsel has further argued that the blood stained clothes and the weapon of offence i.e. kapa though taken into possession as case property but was not produced before the Trial Court. He has also argued that neither the blood stained clothes of the injured, taken into possession during the course of investigation, were produced in the Court nor any witness of the recovery memo pertaining to the clothes, was examined by the prosecution. 12. It has further been argued that a serious and material prejudice has been caused to the appellant as ASI Jugraj, the Investigating Officer, of the case was not produced before the Court. In this manner, the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examining the Investigating Officer on material aspect of the prosecution case. Learned counsel has further argued that on account of non-examination of Investigating Officer, the FIR, site plan and other material documents were not proved on record which caused material prejudice to the case of the appellant. 13. Lastly, the learned counsel has argued that the appellant was juvenile at the time of occurrence. He has been wrongly tried by the trial Court and, therefore, the whole trial is vitiated. 14. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the case as projected by the prosecution against the appellant is fully proved. He has supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court on all counts. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 16. Admittedly, in the present case, the occurrence took place on 14.2.1997 and the FIR was registered on the statement of complainant on 15.2.1997. He has supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court on all counts. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 16. Admittedly, in the present case, the occurrence took place on 14.2.1997 and the FIR was registered on the statement of complainant on 15.2.1997. However, in his deposition before the trial Court, Ram Singh, PW 4, has stated that he became unconscious after receiving injuries and regained consciousness after 15 days of the occurrence and thereafter, the police came to the hospital and recorded his statement. This vital and material discrepancy in the statement of the injured makes the entire case of the prosecution doubtful coupled with the fact that neither the eye witnesses i.e. Harjit Kaur and Jaswinder Singh @ Jinder were examined nor the Investigating Officer ASI Jugraj was examined which caused material prejudice to the appellant and resulted into the deprievement of the opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating Officer. 17. Apart from the above, case under Section 450 of IPC is not made out in view of the statement of Ram Singh, PW 4, as there is contradiction with regard to the place of occurrence, because as per his deposition, the occurrence took place upon a piece of land and the accused came over there and inflicted injuries, whereas in the FIR, he has stated that the appellant had come to his house and inflicted injuries. 18. There are material contradictions in the statement of injured witness Ram Singh, PW 4. The other material witnesses i.e. eye witnesses Harjit Kaur and Jaswinder Singh @ Jinder have not been examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. In the instant case, I have no hesitation to record that the prosecution has suppressed the true genesis of the crime. 19. In view of the above discussions, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 12.7.2002 passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. 20. Since main appeal is disposed of as such the misc. application, if any pending, also stands disposed of.