Jagraj Singh vs Labh Singh

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

Labh Singh, Hakam Singh, Pritpal Singh, Avtar Singh, Nazam Singh, Gurpal Singh, Jagtar Singh, accusedrespondents, were challaned and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 325/324/323/379/148, read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. They were acquitted by the trial Court, Sangrur, therefore, Jagraj Singh, complainant, has preferred this criminal revision.

The brief facts of the case are that on July 5, 1996, at about 7 p.m. Jagraj Singh was returning to his house on foot from the fields. When he was at a distance of 2 killas away from Desuke Kothe, a tractor driven by Labh Singh, accusedrespondent, came from the side of the village. He was accompanied by Hakam Singh. Pritpal Singh armed with a saria, Avtar armed with a soti, Nazam Singh, armed with a barchha; Gurpal Singh armed with a Kahi. Jagtar Singh stopped his tractor near Jagraj Singh and all the remaining accused alighted from the tractor and raised lalkara that Jagraj Singh would not be spared. Then Labh Singh gave gandasa blow from its sharp side on the right leg of Jagraj Singh; Gurpal Singh gave kahi blow from its sharp side on the little and adjoining finger of his right foot. Nazam Singh gave barchha blow from its sharp side on his left thigh; Pritpal Singh gave two saria blows on the upper part of his left arm; Jagtar Singh gave soti blow on the finger of his right hand; Avtar Singh gave soti blow from its edge side on his testicles due to which he fell down. All the accusedrespondents kept on causing injuries to Jagraj Singh. When he was raising alram, his brother Gurjant Singh and Charan Singh son of Pritam Singh came on a tractor and challenged the accused on which all the accused alongwith their respective weapons ran away. While fleeing away, Hakam Singh picked Rs. 10,150/ from the back pocket of trouser of Jagraj Singh.

The motive of the occurrence is that Jagraj Singh had taken land measuring 7 acres in auction from the village panchayat and that is why all the accused nourished grudge against him. Jagraj Singh was taken to the Civil Hospital, Longowal in a trolleytractor, where he was medically examined.

On the statement of the injured, A.S.I. Labh Singh made endorsement Exhibit PW/E and forwarded the same to the Police Station for the registration of the case, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exhibit PW6/F was recorded. A.S.I. Labh Singh visited the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan Exhibit PW6/G and recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation, the challan was presented. The accused were arrested on July 8, 1996.

As prima facie a case under Sections 325, 324, 323, 379, 148 read with section 149, I.P.C. was made out against all the accusedrespondents, they were formally charged thereunder and they had claimed trial by not pleading guilty to the charge.

The prosecution evidence as well as the defence taken up by the accused was considered by the trial Court, who came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, they were acquitted after giving them benefit of doubt. Hence, this criminal revision.

I have heard Mr. S.S. Saler, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant AdvocateGeneral, Punjab and Mr. Tahar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

Mr. S.S. Saler, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents were armed with barchha, dang, saria et cetera and they had caused injuries to the complainant, as above, because they had grievance against the complainant due to landdispute. There were as many as 13 injuries on the person of the injured, but the trial Court had ignored all these material points;'' facts and the evidence brought on the record and acquitted the accusedrespondents. The trial Court has also laid much stress on the statements of Gurjant Singh, P.W.3 and Charan Singh, P.W.4, who were eye witnesses, simply on the ground that their presence at the spot has been discarded. In fact, they are independent witnesses; they are related to the complainant being their cousin brothers. The statements of the injured coupled with medical evidence was enough to warrant their conviction and the trial Court was in error by acquitting them by giving the benefit of doubt.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find myself in agreement with him on the point that the trial Court was in error in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution case is doubtful by laying much stress on the statements of Gurjant Singh, P.W.3 and Charan Singh, P.W.4. Admittedly, both these witnesses were declared hostile and they did not support the prosecution version. Assuming for a moment their statements can be ignored, but whether the statement of the injured and the medical evidence is enough to warrant conviction, the answer in the negative. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained by the prosecution. If the matter was reported to the police on the same day then why the F.I.R. was not recorded regarding the occurrence on the same day?

The trial Court has also discussed the infirmities and inconsistencies in respect of the medical evidence and the ocular evidence particularly when the injuries were found on the person of the injured Jagraj Singh. For instance Jagtar Singh had allegedly caused injury on the finger of right hand of Jagraj Singh, but this fact is totally missing from the medical evidence. No bloodstained earth was taken from the spot nor the clothes of the injured stained with blood were produced. Except rifle, no other weapon of offence was recovered. It is also stated that the place of occurrence was not pinned down. Thus, under these circumstances, where the eyewitnesses have not given correct account of the manner in which the occurrence took place, then the trial Court is justified to discard their statements. In Banwari Ram v. State of U.P., 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 282, it has been held that the High Court has full powers while hearing an appeal against acquittal to reappreciate the evidence and to come to a conclusion whether the order of acquittal was per se bad or not. If, however, two views are possible, one supporting acquittal and the other indicating conviction then High Court would not be justified in interfering with order of acquittal.

Having discussed the case, as above, one can easily come to the conclusion that in the given case, in hand, two views are possibleone supporting acquittal which has already been considered by the trial Court, the other view need not be inquired. Thus, this petition is dismissed.