Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3320 (PNJ)

Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab

2010-12-10

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.05.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala by which Daljit Singh, accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as under: Sr. Under Section Quantum of sentence No 1 Under Section 436 IPC To undergo R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for four months. 2 Under Section 427 IPC To undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.08.1996, complainant-Om Parkash made a statement Ex-PA before ASI Gurbax Ram that he is resident of Mohalla Rattanpura and is a tenant of a shop in the building near Railway crossing, which is owned by Amarjit Singh. He was dealing in old and new watches. On 17.08.1996, he closed his shop at about 8.00 p.m. and went to his house. At about 4.30 a.m. Kikar Singh who lives near his shop, informed him that his shop had caught fire. He went to his shop and saw the accused, Daljit Singh (herein appellant), Harjinderjit singh, Tajinderjit Singh and Taranjit Singh, running from the street on the back side of the shop towards the main road. It is alleged that the landlord, Amarjit Singh, had appointed his brother-in-law, Daljit Singh, and the other accused persons (being sons of Daljit Singh), as caretakers to look after the shop in question. Thereafter, the Fire Brigade and other persons of the locality extinguished the fire. The motive of setting the said shop on fire by Daljit Singh-appellant and others was stated to be that they wanted to get the shop vacated from him. 3. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the court. The offence under Section 436 IPC being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed by learned Magistrate to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. Accused persons were charged under Sections 436/427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The offence under Section 436 IPC being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed by learned Magistrate to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. Accused persons were charged under Sections 436/427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, namely PW-1 Om Parkash as complainant, PW-2 Ram Parkash, PW-3 Gurbachan Singh, PW4, Kuldip Singh, PW-5 Gurmit Lal, PW-6 Kikar Singh, PW-7 Harinderpal Singh, PW-8 Tilak Ram and PW-9 ASI Gurbax Ram as Investigation Officer. In their statement, all the accused-persons pleaded innocense. However, no evidence was lead in defence. 6. Learned Session Judge, Kapurthala vide his judgment dated 04.05.2001 acquited Tajinderjit Singh @ Jolly, Taranjit singh @ Happy and Harinderjit Singh @ Lucky of all the charges framed against them. However, the appellant-Daljit Singh was convicted under Section 436/427 IPC and sentenced him as referred to above. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence he came in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no eyewitness to the incident. As per the case of the prosecution, at about 4.30 a.m., while Kikkar Singh, PW6, was lying asleep at his residence, he heard noise of explosion at which he came out of his house. He found the watch shop of the complainant on fire. Kikkar Singh went to the house of Om Parkash, PW1, who resides in the same locality and informed him about the incident. On receipt of information, the complainant, Om Parkash, rushed to the spot and when he reached at the backside of the street, he saw all the accused running towards the main road. Learned counsel has further submitted that it has come in the statement of complainant, Om Parkash, that he had suffered loss of Rs.4,00,000/-. However, photocopies of two receipts, Mark 'A' and 'B', were for Rs.6,000/-and 7,000/-, respectively. Learned counsel has further referred that in the alleged receipts, name of the buyer has not been mentioned. The company from where the alleged two receipts were procured, was owned by the son of the complainant. 9. However, photocopies of two receipts, Mark 'A' and 'B', were for Rs.6,000/-and 7,000/-, respectively. Learned counsel has further referred that in the alleged receipts, name of the buyer has not been mentioned. The company from where the alleged two receipts were procured, was owned by the son of the complainant. 9. Learned counsel has further pointed out that from the statement of the complainant, it is not made out that the complainant knew the accused prior to the occurrence and that he was appointed as care-taker by the owner of the shop. 10. Learned counsel has further submitted that in fact, the occurrence has taken place on account of short circuit as the appellant had been operating a gas agency unauthorizdly in the said premises. 11. Learned counsel has further submitted that Ram Parkash, PW2, being a co-tenant, is an interested witness and his testimony cannot be relied upon. He has further submitted that no independent witness has been examined in this case. As per the testimony of complainant, Om Parkash, a number of persons from the locality were present, however, none of them was cited as a witness. 12. Learned counsel has further submitted that there are material improvements in the statement of Om Parkash, PW1. He has admitted the non-payment of rent and the fact that he did not know if the accused were holding any power of attorney with regard to the shop in question. Learned counsel has submitted that in view of the admission by the complainant, the appellant cannot be connected with the incident. 13. Learned counsel has further submitted that form the statement of Gurmit Lal, Fireman, it is not proved as to whether the statement of this witness was recorded by the Police or not as no record in this regard was produced before the Court. 14.. On the other hand learned counsel for the state submits that the relation of the appellant with the owner of the shop is proved. He has further referred to the statement of Om Parkash that he vacated the shop. The learned counsel further submits that the owner did not resort to legal remedy for getting possession of the shop in question. It also suggests that the shop was bought by Daljit Singh, accused-appellant and the same was at the behest of the landlord. 15. He has further referred to the statement of Om Parkash that he vacated the shop. The learned counsel further submits that the owner did not resort to legal remedy for getting possession of the shop in question. It also suggests that the shop was bought by Daljit Singh, accused-appellant and the same was at the behest of the landlord. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 16. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence in the instant case. The fire was initially noticed by Kikar Singh, PW-6 who further informed the complainant-Om Parkash. It has come in the testimony of Om Parkash that when he reached the shop, number of persons had gathered and fire brigade had already extinguished the fire. The prosecution examined Fireman, Gurmeet Lal-PW-5, however, in his testimony, neither the fact as to who had informed the fire brigade nor the fact of distance between the fire brigade station and the place of occurence has come. 17. From the testimony of Ram Parkash, PW-2, it emerges that half an hour was taken by the Fire Brigade to extinguish the fire, which clearly suggests that the complainant reached the spot after half an hour of getting information. The complainant, Om Parkash, has also stated that he reached the spot after half an hour. In the circumstances, it is difficult to comprehend that the appellant would remain present at the spot for half an hour after setting the shop on fire and wait for the complainant to come and notice him. Moreover, except the allegation that the appellant was appointed as caretaker by the landlord of the shop in question (being his brother-in-law), there is nothing on record to connect him with the crime. Even the fact that the appellant was known to the complainant has not been fully established. There is no corroboration of the statement of Om Parkash, complainant, on the fact that the accused persons were seen running from the backside of the lane toward the main road, particularly, when a large number of residents of the locality had gathered on the spot, except PW2, who is a neighbour and co-tenant. Even if its is taken to be correct, then the statement made by these witnesses cannot be segregated to this extent and used for the conviction of the appellant. Even if its is taken to be correct, then the statement made by these witnesses cannot be segregated to this extent and used for the conviction of the appellant. No site-plan has been placed on record in the instant case. The cause of fire was not investigated into and there is nothing on record to rule out that it was not an accidental fire, particularly, when it has come on record that the complainant had been running a gas agency in the same shop. The complainant has admitted that there were three filled and three empty cylinders inside the shop at the time of occurrence. The complainant, Om Parkash, has made material improvements. He has admitted that before he reached the spot, the fire had already been extinguished whereas in his cross-examination, he has stated that there was a noise of bursting of cylinder inside the shop. He has admitted that RM Watch Company, from where the purchasing was allegedly done, was owned by his son. 18. In the instant case, it has not been conclusively proved that the appellant was previously known to the complainant and the appellant was appointed as care-taker of the property by its owner. There is nothing on record that the appellant ever visited the shop of the complainant or harassed him in any manner or took up the issue of eviction of the complainant from the shop on behalf of the owner. Therefore, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to connect the appellant with the crime. 19. Under these circumstances, I feel that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 20. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is hereby, set aside and the appellant is acquited of the charges. 21. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed.