Kirpal Singh vs Ram Singh and Others

C.S. Tiwana, J.—This revision is by a private person named Kirpal Singh against the acquittal of three convicted persons recorded by Shri Hardev Singh, Additional Sessions Judge Rupnagar, in appeal. They had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anandpur Sahib, by his judgment dated December 11, 1975, in relation to the offences under sections 326/34 of Indian Penal Code. The Judgment of acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge was passed on December 3, 1976. It has been urged in this revision that some minor irregularities committed by the trial court in recording the evidence had been improperly made a ground of acquittal and for that reason the judgment in appeal is required to be set aside.

Ram Singh and his two sons Surjit and Swaran Singh were tried for having voluntarily caused some hurts to Kirpal Singh and Rajinder Singh on February 21, 1973, at about 8.30 a.m. at Kiratpur Sahib Kirpal Singh at first got recorded a report in the roznamcha maintained at the Police Station, Anandpur Sahib, at 9.30 a.m. on the date of occurrence. Subsequently in view of the medico-legal reports case was registered against the three accused persons who are the respondents in this revision at 6.10 p.m. on February 21, 1973, at the Police Station, Anandpur Sahib, which is at a distance of 8 km from the place of occurrence.

Kirpal Singh had received a greivous hurt which was described as an incised wound 18 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm over the right side of the face 3 cm in front of left ear. He had two other minor abrasions. These injuries were disclosed in the medical examination conducted by Dr. Gurnam Singh PW 1 at 12.30 p.m. on February 21, 1973. Raiinder Singh was examined by Dr. Gurnam Singh PW 1 soon after the examination of Kirpal Singh and he had nine injuries on his person which were described as lacerated wounds, reddish contusions and abrasions.

The charge-sheet framed against the respondent shows that Swaran Singh was charged with the substantive offence u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused grievous hurt to Kirpal Singh and the other two respondents were charged for that offence with the help of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Surjit Singh was charged u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused hurt to Kirpal Singh and the other two respondents were charged u/s 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. There was a separate charge against Ram Singh and Surjit Singh u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused hurt to Rajinder Singh and in relation to that part of the occurrence Swaran Singh was charged u/s 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution version as appearing from the judgment of the trial court is that Rajinder Singh was maintaining a shop for the sale of spare parts of machinery at Kiratpur Sahib and that while he was taking bath at a tap near a petrol pump all the three respondents came there differently armed. Ram Singh had a handsaw known as Ari, Surjit Singh had an iron rod and Swaran Singh a gandhali. They caused some injuries with those weapons to Rajinder Singh who then ran towards another shop maintained by Kirpal Singh When Kirpal Singh tried to intervene, hurts were caused to him by the accused person. Besides the injured persons, Mashan Singh and Baldev Singh PW 4 saw the occurrence. Two other persons named Piara Singh and Rajpal Singh arrived soon after the occurrence and the whole version was told to them by Rajinder Singh.

Reasons for the acquittal of the respondents are contained in para (sic) of the judgment of the appellate Court. At first four irregularities in the trial were mentioned and then five other reasons were given for acquittal. The first irregularity whose benefit has been given to the respondents is that the trial court did not mention the offences for which the conviction was recorded. It has only been stated by the trial Magistrate in para 10 of his judgment that all the accused persons were held ''guilty'' u/s 326/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate then proceeded to mention that sentences he was awarding for each of the offences. The appellate Court took this view that at that place it should have been mentioned besides the narration about the sentence that the respondents were convicted of such and such offence. The second irregularity found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that it had been mentioned that Ram Singh and Surjit Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- in relation to the offence u/s 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, passing of a joint sentence was improper. He took this view that it should have been mentioned that each of the respondents was being sentenced to such and such imprisonment. It is very much clear from the judgment of the trial Magistrate as to what were the offences for which each of the respondents was convicted and what was the sentence awarded to each one of them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge could have easily corrected the faulty wording of the judgment when the sense itself was clear. The third irregularity pointed out by the learned. Additional Sessions Judge is that serial number of the witness was not mentioned against the statement of Kirpal Singh Furthermore, he mentioned this to be the fourth irregularity that the vernacular record of the statements of Baldev Singh P.W. 4 and Kirpal Singh PW. 5 did not bear the signatures of the presiding officer (the English record of their statements was duly signed by the presiding officer). When it is not being alleged that the record of the statements of these witnesses had been altered by any official of the Court the non signing of the statements remains merely an irregularity on account of which no prejudice could be taken to have been caused to the accused persons. It was mentioned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the irregularities caused material prejudice to the accused persons but he failed to mention the reasons for that view. All these irregularities are curable u/s 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

On the merits of the case the appellate Court took note of this fact that Makhan Singh, one of the eye-witnesses, had not been examined. He did not at all make a reference to this fact why Rajinder Singh PW 3, Baldev Singh PW 4 and Kirpal Singh PW 5 who had been examined as eye-witnesses should be disbelieved. Two of these witness, were injured persons and the remaining witness Baldev Singh, was such whose name duly figured in the first information report which was based on a statement of Rajinder Singh promptly recorded. The second reason for acquittal on merits is based upon a discrepancy in the description of the weapons which does not exist. It was mentioned that Kirpal Singh deposed that Surjit Singh was armed with a bari. An iron rod at some places in Punjab is known as a bari and do not at all see any discrepancy. The third reason given by the Court for the acquittal of the respondents is that Piara Singh and Rajpal Singh were not examined and it was said that they could have provided the best link evidence. These witnesses only heard the prosecution version from Rajinder Singh and their examination would not have at all advanced the prosecution case any further. They are not so material witnesses to be examined by the prosecution as to enable the Court to form this opinion that their non-examination created a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused persons. While recounting the fourth reason it was mentioned that Baldev Singh PW 4 did not depose about this fact that any injury was given to Rajinder Singh in his presence. It has been noted that he had run away while injury were being caused to Kirpal Singh. From this kind of narration it cannot at all be inferred that Baldev Singh did not support the prosecution case. The fifth reason given by the learned Additional Sessions-Judge has some force but not to such an extent as to acquit the accused persons. Surjit Singh respondent had himself been medically examined by Dr. Gurnam Singh PW 1 at 4.15 p.m. on the date of occurrence. The injuries noted on his person were described as follows:-

There is swelling on the upper 6 lip 6 cm x 2 cm and there is reddish contusion 2 cm x 0.05 cm over the inner aspect of the upper lip. Clotted blood is present in both nostrils of the nose.

There is laceration 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm over the buccal (inner) aspect of the left cheek.

It was remarked by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that it was the duty of the prosecution to explain these injuries. The injuries were at all not so serve as to rule out the possibility of their being self-suffered. Further-more, there is this explanation offered by Rajinder Singh PW 3 that it was he who gave a pinch at the nose of Surjit Singh. If it was so, it is likely that the injuries found on the body of Surjit Singh could be caused by the pinching of his skin. Anyway, it was for the appellate Court to consider the explanation and then reject it. It was not justified in arriving at this finding that the explanation for the injuries was missing.

Thus the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions cannot be sustained on the reasons given by him for the acquittal of the respondents. Even though it is provided by section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that in a revision the High Court may in its discretion exercise any of the power; conferred on a Court of appeal yet the practice of the High Court is not to interfere ordinarily in revision with orders of acquittal. It is only in exceptional cases that the powers of revision for setting aside an acquittal can be exercised. I am of the view that the present case is an exceptional one. The appellate Court has been unable to give any such reason which could be taken to be having any merit. It is apparent that the appellate Court arbitrarily took a decision to acquit the respondents and then tried to find out some reasons to support the view. This fact was altogether ignored that the prosecution case was supported by two of the injured witnesses and another independent witness. No reasons have been given for discarding the evidence of the each one of them. The only thing which the learned counsel for the respondents could urge is that the offence having been committed in the year 1973 and the acquittal having taken place in the year 1976 it would not be proper to set aside the acquittal at this stage. I am conscious of the delay that has occurred in the final consideration of the matter by this Court, yet when such a conclusion is reached that the judgment in appeal has no merit it has necessarily to be set aside. The acquittal of the respondents is, therefore, set aside and it is ordered that the Additional Sessions Judge shall re-hear the appeal and then by ignoring the arguments already taken by him should come to a finding whether the evidence on record is sufficient for the conviction of the respondents or not. The respondents are directed to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, on December 1, 1980, for further proceedings.