Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 296 (PNJ)

Jarnail Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-13

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2010
Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Present appeal has been preferred by Jarnail Singh son of banta Singh assailing the judgment rendered by Additional Sessions judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby he acquitted the appellant for offence under Sec.307 IPC but convicted him for offence under Sec.427 ipc. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Fir, in the present case, was registered on the basis of statement Ex. PA made by Surinder Singh. He stated in his statement that he is a resident of village Shekhpura and do work of agriculture and sheller. On 10th July, 1995 at 3.30 p. m. he had gone to the house of karnail Singh to convey the message of SDO, Electricity. He parked his maruti car on one side of the street, in front of house of Karnail Singh. Thereafter, he went inside the house. A horn of tractor was heard by him. He came out and found that the appellant made an attempt to run over the complainant under the tractor. Thereafter, Jarnail Singh hit his tractor on the back side of the Maruti car. 3. In nutshell, case of the complainant was that accused appellant made an attempt to kill him by bringing his tractor towards the complainant, however, complainant could safe his life by running away from the spot. In the present case, nobody has suffered any injury. The trial Court, after discussing the evidence, came to the conclusion that no offence under Sec.307 IPC is made out and held as under: "21. Surinder Singh P. W.2 deposed that Jarnail Singh accused on seeing him drove his tractor towards him in order to murder him by running under his tractor and he saved his life by running away and then the accused drove his tractor against his stationary maruti car PCI 281 and the accused continued in the process of pushing/ hitting the car with the tractor with force and took the car for about a distance of two killas in the field of Mohinder Singh and then to the field of Kesar Singh. As rightly pointed out by the learned defence counsel in the first version in Ex. As rightly pointed out by the learned defence counsel in the first version in Ex. P. A. the statement of Surinder Singh, the complainant no where alleged that the accused drove his tractor towards him with the intention to kill him, in the complaint Ex. D. W.1/a-which Surinder Singh complainant filed against the accused regarding the same occurrence he again no where alleged that the accused drove his tractor towards him with the intention to kill him. In the complaint it was for the first time that Surinder Singh complainant came out with a complete new and diverse version that the accused at the time of driving his tractor was armed with a gun and threatened him to cause his death if he went near to car. It was only in the witness box that Surinder singh P. W.2 came out with another fresh and new version that the accused on seeing him drove his tractor towards him in order to murder him by running over under the tractor is inconsistent vacillating and shifting posture has been adopted by surinder Singh PW.2 complainant with regard to the prosecution version in order to bring home the guilt for an offence u/s 307 I. P. C. that itself is sufficient that has caused much damage and harm than to establish the prosecution case for the said offence. The first information report was got registered regarding the occurrence after about 3 days of the occurrence and if Jarnail Singh accused at the time of occurrence would have been armed with his gun and he had threatened surinder Singh complainant to cause his death and further if Jarnail Singh accused had driven his tractor with the intention to commit the murder of surinder Singh then these essential facts and acts must not have escaped from the memory of Surinder Singh complainant and pointed reference to the heinous acts must have been made in the FIR. So the fact that these facts did not find mention in the FIR show that with the progress of investigation and passing of the time certain improvements have been made. Further there is definite improvement in the prosecution version made at the time of ushering the complainant Surinder Singh and eye witness Ujaggar Singh in the witness box at the time of recording of prosecution evidence and earlier at the time of filing the complaint Ex. Further there is definite improvement in the prosecution version made at the time of ushering the complainant Surinder Singh and eye witness Ujaggar Singh in the witness box at the time of recording of prosecution evidence and earlier at the time of filing the complaint Ex. D. W.1/a. However, there is nothing in the FIR regarding the occurrence that may not present the true and proper facts. So the delay in lodging the FIR itself in the present case is not fatal because in the FIR only true account of the occurrence has been narrated and whatever improvements have been made by Surinder Singh complainant regarding the occurrence to bring his case u/s 307 I. P. C. were made by him quite lateron when he filed the complaint ex. D. W.1/a and further when he stepped into the witness box as a prosecution witness. This in the light of aforesaid discussions Court accept the submissions made on behalf of the accused that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the accused for an offence u/s 307 I. P. C. " 4. After recording the acquittal of the appellant for offence under section 307 IPC, the trial Court relied upon the mechanical test report ex. PW-6/a and held that appellant had damaged the dickey (back side) of the car and the complainant had to spent Rs.20,000/- to get his car repaired. For causing damage to the car, the appellant was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Sec.427 IPC. 5. Mr. M. S. Rakkar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Manwinder singh Sidhu, has stated that occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 16th July, 1995. The appellant has already suffered a protracted trial of 15 years. He had only caused damage to the Maruti car. The complainant had concocted the story and had falsely implicated the appellant for offence under Sec.307 IPC. On this account, the complainant and his witnesses have not been believed by the trial Court. Therefore, the sentence awarded upon the appellant ought to be reduced. 6. He had only caused damage to the Maruti car. The complainant had concocted the story and had falsely implicated the appellant for offence under Sec.307 IPC. On this account, the complainant and his witnesses have not been believed by the trial Court. Therefore, the sentence awarded upon the appellant ought to be reduced. 6. Taking into consideration that the occurrence had taken place in year 1995 and the appellant has faced the agony and pain of the protracted trial, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the appellant is reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to three months rigorous imprisonment. 7. With these modifications in the sentence, present appeal is disposed of.