State of Punjab vs Tara Singh .

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

The present appeal has resulted from a case registered at the instance of Gurmeet Kaur against her husband Tara Singh, her fatherinlaw Chand Singh and brothers of his fatherinlaw namely Inder Singh and Pritam Singh at Police Station, Sangrur, Gurmeet Kaur alleged that she was married to Tara Singh about two years before the occurrence and after some time of marriage her relations with her husband became strained who filed a petition for divorce against her which was pending in a Court at Sangrur. On the day of occurrence she had gone to Sangrur to see her Counsel in connection with that case and while she was returning to village Mangal where she resided, Tara Singh accused tried to hit his scooter against her bicycle from the back side. She, however, escaped. On the same night she was sleeping in a Chaubara where a boy named Rajinder Singh, who resided with her, was also sleeping and a lantern was burning when at about 12.30 A.M. the door of the Chaubara was forcibly opened and Tara Singh and Inder Singh came inside armed with Sotis. They were followed by Chand Singh and Pritam Singh who too had Sotis. Inder Singh caught hold of her by her hair and Tara Singh gave a Soti blow on her left ankle. Chand Singh gave Soti blows on her buttock while Pritam Singh cought hold her from her legs. She and Rajinder raised alarm at which Chand Singh tried to gag her mouth and she received scratches on her face. While leaving the place the accusedrespondents threatened her with dire consequences.

During the night Gurmeet Kaur went to the house of Chan Singh Sarpanch of village Mangwal and gave him information regarding the incident who sent a ruqa to S.H.O, Police Station, Sangrur. On receipt of ruqa S.I. Gurmeet Singh reached the village and recorded the statement of Gurmeet Kaur on the basis of which a case was registered against the respondents. Gurmeet Kaur was medically examined. After completion of the investigation the accused were tried for offences under Sections 452, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code by Shri J.K. Goel, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. They were found guilty and were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 452 and 323 I.P.C. Against the judgment recording their conviction, the accusedrespondents filed an appeal which was accepted by Shri R.K. Singal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide judgment dated 8.2.1983 and conviction and sentence imposed upon the respondents were set aside. Against this judgment recording acquittal of the respondents the State of Punjab has come up in appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that all the four respondents entered the Chaubara of Gurmeet Kaur during the night and caused her injuries. Both Gurmeet Kaur and Rajinder Singh supported the prosecution version and their testimony was duly corroborated by the statement of the doctor who found 16 injuries on the person of Gurmeet Kaur. Gurmeet Kaur knew the respondents who were her husband and his relations and there was no reason for her to substitute wrong persons and shield the real culprits.

The contentions of the learned counsel in our view cannot be accepted as there was sufficient reason for Gurmeet Kaur to involve her husband, his father and uncles because she was not having good relations with her husband and litigation was pending between them for severing the marital connections. The contention of Tara Singh respondent during trial when his statement was recorded was that he was falsely involved in the case. He resided at Bhiwanigarh while Pritam Singh was a resident of village Tungan. There was no question of forming any group and causing injuries to Gurmeet Kaur. In fact she had foisted this case on them on account of divorce proceedings. It was further contended that Rajinder Singh who was a child of 89 years had made a tutored statement.

The prosecution case rests on the statements of Gurmeet Kaur complainant and Rajinder PW 4 but the statements of both these witnesses were utterly unreliable and did not inspire conviction. Rajinder PW was unable to identify the respondents in the Court. He pointed out Inder Singh as Pritam Singh and was unable to identify Tara Singh who was present in Court but the witness stated that he was not there. As he was not in a position to identify the respondents his statement could not be taken into consideration in determining the guilt or innocence of the respondents. So far as the statement of Gurmeet Kaur is concerned that too suffers from serious infirmities and was contradicted by the medical evidence. As per her statement all the respondents were armed with sticks and she was given stick blows but Dr. Suresh Kumar PW 3 who examined her on 17.1.1981 at 9.00 A.M. found 16 injuries on her person out of which injuries Nos. 1, 2, 9 and 10 were caused by sharp pointed and injury No. 8 was caused by a sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 1was on the face, injury No. 2 was on neck, Nos. 8 and 9 on left leg and No. 10 was on ankle of Gurmeet Kaur. Injury No. 8 was 5 cms x 1/6 cms in dimensions. There is absolutely no explanation as to how these injuries with sharp edged and sharp pointed weapons were caused to Gurmeet Kaur and in the absence of any explanation the only inference is that Gurmeet Kaur had not stated the truth regarding the manner of occurrence and receipt of the injuries. When ocular account of an occurrence given by witness is contradicted by medical evidence no reliance can be placed on the testimony of that witness. There was no corroboration of the statement of Gurmeet Kaur. The occurrence took place on the intervening night of 16/17.1.1981 at about 1230 A.M. in the area of village Mangwal which was at a distance of 11/2 miles from Police Station, Sangrur. Immediately after the occurrence Gurmeet Kaur went to Chanan Singh and informed him about the occurrance Chanan Singh sent ruqa mark ''A'' to S.H.O. Police Station, Sangrur wherein he mentioned that he had received information at 12.30 A.M. that Gurmeet Kaur had been caused injuries by 34 persons after her door was broken open. Gurmeet Kaur had received many injuries and there was none to look after her, so arrangement may be made for her medical treatment. This ruqa was sent to the police station at the instance of Gurmeet Kaur but the names of the persons who caused injuries were not mentioned nor it was definitely stated whether they were 3 or 4 persons. If Gurmeet Kaur had identified the persons who assaulted her then she must have disclosed the names to the Sarpanch. Absence of the names of the persons who assaulted Gurmeet Kaur from the ruqa sent to the police station will lead to an inference that she was caused injuries by some persons who could not be identified and she named the respondents in the morning on account of her strained relations with them. Chanan Singh was an important witness in the case because he was the first who was approached by Gurmeet Kaur after the incident but he was not examined by the prosecution. He could duly corroborate the statement of Gurmeet Kaur. Gurmeet Kaur was residing in an area surrounded by residential houses but no person from the neighbourhood was produced to show that the occurrence took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Considering all these informations in the case of the prosecution, the learned lower Appellate Court was justified in acquitting the respondents and the findings of acquittal are affirmed.

As a result we don''t find any force in this appeal and dismiss the same.