Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 751 (PNJ)

Kartar Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-02-02

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2010
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1 Kartar Singh, present appellant, along with his son Harvinder Singh and Karamjit Singh, were named as accused in case FIR No. 87 dated 31.5.1994, registered at Police Station Jagraon, under Section 307/34 IPC. During the course of trial, Karamjit Singh died. Coaccused Harvinder Singh was acquitted by the trial Court. The appellant was found guilty of offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2 Aggrieved against conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed against the judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. on 19.7.1999. 3 In the present case, Amar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, on receipt of wireless message, was going to Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana, when at Jhansi Chowk, he met complainant Sohan Singh. Sohan Singh made statement Ex. PA before Amar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, at 5.45 P.M. Sohan Singh stated that he was working as Teacher in Government High School in village Gagra. He was blessed with two sons and one daughter. His elder son was employed in Police Department and younger son Harminder Singh was working on a photostat machine in the Teshil Complex. On 10.5.1994 at about 11.30 P.M., Kartar Singh, his son Harvinder Singh and Karamjit Singh, after consuming liquor, were singing obscene songs. The complainant and his son Harminder Singh restrained the accused but all the three accused started giving abuses. Complainant party advised them to refrain. At that time, Kartar Singh and his son Harvinder Singh caught hold of Harminder Singh, son of the complainant, from his arms. Kartar Singh raised a Ialkara, upon which Karamjit Singh gave a knife blow in the abdomen of Harminder Singh. Harminder Singh fell down. On the noise raised by the complainant, all the three accused decamped from the spot. Kamaljit Singh son of Atma Singh was attracted at the spot. He along with complainant took Harminder Singh to Civil Hospital, Jagraon, from where he was referred to Ludhiana. The complainant brought his son to Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana, where treatment was provided to Harminder Singh and complainant came to lodge the report when police party met him in the way. 4 The matter was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The complainant brought his son to Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana, where treatment was provided to Harminder Singh and complainant came to lodge the report when police party met him in the way. 4 The matter was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. 5 When the charges were to be framed on 24.11.1994, Karamjit Singh, who had caused injury, had died. Therefore, substantive charge for offence under Section 307 IPC was framed against Karamjit Singh and charge for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the appellant and his son Harvinder Singh (acquitted co-accused). 6 Prosecution examined Sohan Singh, complainant, as PW. 1. In the Court, Sohan Singh stated that Kartar Singh caught hold of his son in "Jaffa" (embrace) and accused Harvinder Singh caught hold of his son from the right arm. Kartar Singh gave a lalkara and then Karamjit Singh gave a chhura blow in the abdomen of his son Harvinder Singh. PW. 1 Sohan Singh was confronted with his previous statement Ex. PA, where the fact that the present appellant had taken him in "Jaffa" was not recorded. The relevant portion of the cross- examination of PW. 1 Sohan Singh read as under :- "I had stated in my statement that Kartar Singh, accused, caught hold my son by his arms (Jaffa). The attention of the witness is drawn towards his statement Ex. PA, wherein it is not so recorded". 7 Harminder Singh, injured, appeared as PW. 2. This witness also stated that accused Kartar Singh had took him in his "Jaffa" whereas his son caught hold of his right arm. 8 PW. 3 Dr. Balbir Singh had found one stab injury in the abdomen of Harminder Singh. 9 Jagir Singh, Sub Inspector, appeared as PW. 4 and proved formal FIR Ex. PA/1. 10 Prem Pal Singh Virk, Draftsman, had prepared a scaled site plan Ex. PG. PW. 6 Amar Singh, Sub Inspector, was the Investigating Officer. He proved various as pects of the investigation. 11 Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. 12 The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence were put to them. They denied the same and pleaded their false implication. 13 Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has stated that in the present case, PW. He proved various as pects of the investigation. 11 Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. 12 The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence were put to them. They denied the same and pleaded their false implication. 13 Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has stated that in the present case, PW. 2 Harminder Singh had suffered only one injury and that was attributed to Karamjit Singh, co-accused, who had died during the trial. It is submitted that for the one injury suffered by the injured Harminder Singh, three persons were named as accused. 14 Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, submitted that the evidence of PW. 1 Sohan Singh and PW. 2 Harminder Singh aspire confidence. 15 In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 10.5.1994 at 11.30 P.M. Sohan Singh had made statement Ex. PA to Amar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW. 6, on 11.5.1994 at 5.45 P.M. The case was registered in Police Station Jagraon at 6.05 P.M. and the special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate on the same day at 8.15 P.M. Statement of PW. 1 Sohan Singh Ex. PA was recorded after about 18 hours of the incident. There was delay in lodging of the report. In the FIR, it has been specifically stated as under :- "Kartar Singh and his son Harvinder Singh caught hold of my son Harminder Singh from the arms". 16 In the Court, the witness has improved his version and has stated that Kartar Singh took the injured Harminder Singh in a "Jaffa". The witness Sohan Singh was duly confronted with his previous statement Ex. PA where it was not so recorded. Portion of the cross-examination to this effect has already been reproduced earlier. Furthermore, as per the FIR, appellant Kartar Singh had caught hold of arm of Harminder Singh along with his son Harvinder Singh. Harvinder Singh has been granted benefit of doubt by the trail Court. For recording acquittal of Harvinder Singh, the trial Court observed as under :- "8. The FIR in this case has been lodged after a delay of about 18 hours. The only fact of delay in lodging the FIR can be said to be that of some innocent person can be falsely implicated along with the guilty. In the present case no part is attributed to the accused Harvinder Singh. The FIR in this case has been lodged after a delay of about 18 hours. The only fact of delay in lodging the FIR can be said to be that of some innocent person can be falsely implicated along with the guilty. In the present case no part is attributed to the accused Harvinder Singh. PW-1 Sohan Singh who is the author of FIR has stated that the accused Kartar Singh caught hold of PW Harminder Singh injured in his arms (Jaffa) and the accused Harvinder Singh caught hold of PW Harminder Singh has also stated that the accused Kartar Singh took him in his arms (Jaffa) whereas i.e. accused Harvinder Singh took him by the right arm and give him fist blow. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution at any stage of the case that the. accusedHarvinder Singh gave fist blow to PW Harminder Singh. It is the case of the prosecution that the occurrence was witnessed by Shmt. Nirmal Kaur wife of Sohan Singh and mother of PW Harminder Singh as well as one Kamaljit Singh but the prosecution has failed to examine them for the reasons best known to them. The false implication of the accused Harvinder Singh in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be ruled out. The benefit of doubt is, therefore, given to the accused Harvinder Singh and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him". 17 This reasoning can equally be applied to the case of present appellant Kartar Singh. Kartar Singh had caused no injury in the occurrence. He was only stated to have raised lalkara. It is stated at the cost of repetition that in the FIR it is stated that one arm was caught hold by Kartar Singh and other arm by his son Harvinder Singh. Therefore, the case of appellant cannot be differentiated from the case of Harvinder Singh. Thus, as a matter of abundant caution, taking the delay into consideration and the fact that the witnesses have improved their version in the Court, benefit of doubt is granted to the appellant. Hence, the present appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges.