Jarnail Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

Four petitioners, namely, Jarnail Singh, his son Gurmit Singh, Avtar Singh and Ajaib Singh, residents of village Mirankot were brought to trial for causing simple and grievous injuries to Jasbir Singh, his mother Surinder Kaur and father Shangara Singh before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, and having been found guilty thereof, they were convicted under Ss. 452/326/323/34, Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, while upholding their convictions and the sentences awarded to them under the ancillary offences, reduced the sentence of Jarnail Singh petitioner under S. 326, Indian Penal code, to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 1000/ and that of Gurmit SIngh, Avtar Singh and Ajaib Singh petitioners under Ss. 326/34, Indian Penal Code to 9 months rigorous imprisonment each while maintaining their sentence of fine with its default clause. Feeling aggrieved, all the petitioners have now come up in revision.

The prosecution case is in a very narrow compass. On 4th February, 1979, at about 7 p.m. Shangara Singh, P.W., alongwith his wife Surinder Kaur and son Jasbir Singh were present in their house when the accusedpetitioners variously armed trespassed into the house of Shangara Singh. Jarnail Singh, opened the attack by giving a gandasi blow on the head of Jasbir Singh. When Shangara Singh and Surinder Kaur tried to intervene, Gurmit Singh gave lathi blows hitting Shangara Singh on his left knee and left arm, followed by Ajaib singh, who gave a dang blow on his head. Avtar Singh gave a dang blow to Surinder Kaur on her head and thereafter, all the accused bolted away with their respective weapons. The injured were removed to the S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar, where Dr. D.S. Waraich medically examined them at about 9.25 p.m. and found the following injuries on their persons :

Shangara Singh :

A reddish contusion 13.5 cm x 2.5 cm on the front and outer side of the left upper arm in lower half.

A reddish contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on the front of left knee.

A contusion 5 cm x 3 cm with the contused wound 1.5 cm x 1/2 over it on the left side of the head 6 cm above the left ear.

Jasbir Singh :

An incised wound 7 cm x 1 cm on the right side of the head. 10 cm above the right ear obliquely and was bleeding.

Surinder Kaur :

A contused wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm on the top of the middle of the head and was bleeding.

Shangara Singh made a statement, Exhibit P.A., before SubInspector Bahadur Singh on 9.2.1979 and on that basis formal First Information Report, Exhibit P.A./2 was registered at the Police Station Sadar Amritsar. The SubInspector prepared the visual plan of the place of occurrence. The accused were arrested and after necessary investigation, they were challaned and sent up for their trial. Shangara Singh, P.W.1, Jasbir Singh, P.W.2 and Surinder Kaur, P.W. 4 furnished the ocular account of the event. SubInspector Bahadur Singh, P.W. 7 was the Investigating Officer. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case but led no evidence in defence.

The trial Magistrate on the basis of the material placed before it recorded the following finding :

(i) that keeping in view the importance of nonlodging the F.I.R. with promptitude and without loss of time, let us see if the delay of 5 days in this case has resulted in connoting false version introducing false witnesses and preparing false evidence and also if there is some explanation regarding the delay. First of all I would refer to the crossexamination of P.W.3 Dr. D.S. Waraich, who states that he had supplied the carbon copy of the M.L.R. of Shangara Singh to H.C. Dilbagh Singh, who was posted as Guard Incharge at the S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar. If this statement of the official witness, which has been brought on the record in the crossexamination is believed to be correct then it could be safely presumed that the police had come to know about the occurrence immediately the injured got themselves admitted in the hospital after the occurrence and it was the duty of the police official to proceed in the matter according to law. If he had failed to do so, then inaction or inefficiency on the part of the police cannot be attributed to the complainant in the matter of lodging the report;

(ii) that still further the complainant (Shangara Singh) in his crossexamination did state that on the night of the occurrence at about 1 p.m., he went to the police station and lodged the report with the police and SubInspector Bahadur Singh and a headConstable were on duty and they entered the report in the roznamcha at that time and his thumb impressions were obtained. Again P.W. 2 Jasbir Singh stated that they made the report regarding the occurrence with the H.C. Incharge of the S.G.T.B. Hospital Guard and he had recorded his statement which he had signed. He further states that SubInspector Bahadur Singh had met him on 2nd or 3rd day of the occurrence and he again made his statement to him. These statements of the two injured witnesses find support from the statement of the doctor and it can be safely concluded that the police did come to know regarding the occurrence much earlier to the alleged statement, Exhibit P.A., made by Shangara Singh; and

(iii) that the possibility, therefore, that the delay was on account of inaction or slackness on the part of the police cannot be ruled out and further that to avoid the consequences of delay they incorporated the ground of compromise between the injured and the accused party, of course, to save their own skin.

The trial Court, however, found the testimony of Shangara Singh, Jasbir Singh and Surinder Kaur, P.Ws., as reliable and considered the same alongwith the medical evidence as sufficient to ground the conviction of the accused thereon and sentenced them as indicated above.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has however, urged that in view of the abovesaid findings favourable to the petitioners recorded by the trial Court, the very substratum of the prosecution case stands knocked out and the trial Court ought not to have recorded a judgment of conviction against them. It was contended that once it was held that the investigation of the case was not fair and above board, then much was not left in the case against the petitioners. According to him the petitioners must have been inculpated in the crime out of suspicion on account of the background of enmity between the petitioners and the victims due to election rivalry. There is substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. On the independent appraisal of the material on the record. I find myself in absolute agreement with the trial Court and its findings in question and the reasoning therefor. There are in the present case certain broad features of the prosecution story which create considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and in my opinion it would not be safe to maintain the conviction on the basis of that evidence. Shangara Singh, P.W. 1, stated that after getting Jasbir Singh and Surinder Kaur admitted in the hospital, he returned to his village and then visited the hospital almost daily for 5 or 6 days to enquire about the health of the injured, but he made no attempt to lodge the report. Further he stated that on the night of occurrence at about 1.00 a.m. he went to the police station and lodged the report with S.I. Bahadur Singh and the same was entered in the daily diary register but the stands falsified by SubInspector Bahadur Singh, who categorically denied to have met Shangara Singh in the Police station on the night of occurrence or that he recorded his statement in the daily diary register. According to Jasbir Singh, P.W. 2, he reported the matter to the HeadConstable Incharge of S.G.T.B. Hospital Guard on the night of the occurrence and also signed that statement. He further stated that SubInspector Bahadur Singh met him on the second or third day of the occurrence and he apprised him of this incident. These assertion were, however, denied by Sub Inspector Bahadur Singh. The said circumstances in my opinion would raise considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses and point to an infirmity in their evidence as would render it unsafe to base the conviction of the petitioners upon it. In the present case the first information report was also spontaneous document and in fact it came into existence after 5 days of the occurrence as a result of consultation with the Investigating Officer.

Thus in view of the serious infirmities, the interested and inimical nature of the evidence and other circumstances pointed out by me, I am clearly of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the petitioners beyond doubt. For these reasons, therefore, I think there are special circumstances in the present case'' which compel me to interfere in this revision. The petition is accordingly allowed. The convictions and sentences passed against the petitioners are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges framed against them.