CRA No.548-SB of 2001 v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Judgment

1. This judgment of mine shall dispose of two cases, namely, CRA No.548-SB of 2001 and CRR No.1906 of 2001, having arisen CRA No.548-SB of 2001 and CRR No.1906 of 2001 2 out of the same incident. However, the facts are being derived from CRA No.548-SB of 2001.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28.04.2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned judgment’) whereby the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), has convicted the accused-appellants as under: Section convicted Section 307 IPC Section IPC Sentence of imprisonment Sentence of fine In default payment of fine for 03 Rs.2,000/- R.I. for 03 R.I. for 03 R.I. years each Rs.2,000/- months R.I. for 03 months Section 506 IPC R.I. for 01 year -- -- Name of the accused- appellant Gurinderbir Singh alias Beera Jasbir Singh alias Bana, Rajinder Singh and Gulzar Singh Gurinderbir Singh alias Beera, Jasbir Singh alias Bana, Rajinder Singh and Gulzar Singh However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The brief facts of the present case, as emanating from the impugned judgment, are that the complainant-Chanchal Singh, was supporting the candidature of S. Manjit Singh Rajasansi, a candidate of Akali Dal Mann in the Assembly Election whereas the accused were supporting Parminder Singh Sandhu of rival faction. The accused were compelling the complainant not to support said S. Manjit Singh but the complainant did not oblige them on the ground CRA No.548-SB of 2001 and CRR No.1906 of 2001 3 that Manjit Singh was his relation and, therefore, the accused had grudge against the complainant.

4. On 18.6.1991 at 6.00 p.m., when the complainant was coming back from the fields to his house on his tractor, all the accused came in a car from the opposite direction and stopped the complainant. At that time, he was at a distance of about 1 ½ killas from his house. The complainant alighted from the tractor and saw that accused-Beera Singh was armed with a DBBL gun whereas other accused were also armed with weapons. All the accused asked the complainant not to support Manjit Singh Rajasansi in the election but the complainant did not agree. Thereafter, accused-Beera Singh, fired shots from his DBBL gun which hit the left shoulder of the complainant and the pellet pierced through and through. The occurrence was witnessed by Nirmal Singh and Harjinder Kaur, wife of the complainant. Then all the four accused dragged the complainant and put him in the Maruti Car and took him away. In the way, the accused threatened the complainant that his family will be eliminated and he will be spared only if he abstained himself from reporting the matter to the Police. Accused-Jasbir Singh alias Bana, came out of the car along with the DBBL gun and rest of the accused took the complainant to the Guru Nanak Dev Hospital and got him admitted there while representing themselves as his relations. After some time, Harjinder Kaur, wife of the complainant, also reached there whereafter the injured was removed to SGTB Hosiptal. At that time, Beera Singh and other accused were also present there. Beera Singh gave threat to Harjinder Kaur not to report the matter to the Police. When the Police reached the Hospital, the injured was unconscious and, therefore, his statement could not be recorded. CRA No.548-SB of 2001 and CRR No.1906 of 2001 4

5. On 27.6.1991, when the complainant was admitted in the Family Ward, Room No.13, of the Hospital, Beera and other accused, who were armed with weapons, came there and threatened that no Police action be got taken against them. They also tried to kidnap the complainant. Thereafter, an application was moved by the complainant to Dr. Joginderpal Singh, which was sent to the Police Post, Gopal Nagar, Majitha Road. On 28.6.1991, another application was moved before the SSP, Amritsar. The complainant remained admitted in the hospital till 6.8.1991 but no police official came to record the statement of the complainant. On 10.8.1991, he met SI Mohinder Singh in Police Station Sadar, Amritsar, who asked the complainant to bring the medico-legal report. Then the complainant got himself medically examined after getting permission from the Court. He again met SI Mohinder Singh along with his MLR but the latter did not take any action.

6. Finding sufficient reasons, the accused were ordered to be summoned to face trial under Sections 307/34 IPC.

7. On appearance, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.

8. The accused were charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 506 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Earlier the complainant filed the complaint on 26.09.1991 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 20.4.1992 and thereafter, another complaint was filed on 6.5.1992, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.

9. In order to substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses, namely, Chanchal CRA No.548-SB of 2001 and CRR No.1906 of 2001 5 Singh, injured-complainant, as PW1; Mohinder Singh, SP, as PW2; Harjinder Kaur, wife of the complainant, as PW3; Dr. Bikramjit Singh as PW4 and Dr. H S Sohal as PW5. Nirmal Singh was given up by the prosecution as having been won over.

10. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused denied the allegations appearing against them in the prosecution case and pleaded their false implication. In defence, the accused examined Kulwinder Singh as DW1 and Jasbir Singh as DW2.

11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the material evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offence and term as indicated at the outset of this judgment.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint. He has submitted that the occurrence in the present case took place on

18.6.1991 and a complaint was filed on 26.6.1991 after a delay of three months which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.4.1992. Learned counsel further submits that subsequently again after a delay of 15-16 days, the present complaint was moved.

13. Learned counsel has further submitted that even as per the case of the prosecution, only the appellant-Gurinderbir Singh alias Bira, caused single fire-arm injury to the complainant-Chanchal Singh and no role whatsoever has been attributed to the other appellants.

14. Learned counsel has further submitted that the case of the prosecution hinges on the statements of the complainant-Chanchal Singh, PW1, and his wife, Harjinder Kaur, who appeared as PW3, but CRA No.548-SB of 2001 and CRR No.1906 of 2001 6 there is no independent corroboration despite the fact that the occurrence was witnessed by many people including one Nirmal Singh.

15. Learned counsel has further stated that it has come in the testimony of Harjinder Kaur, PW3, that there was a police post in the Village. The police people did not chase the appellants as they did not have a vehicle. However, the Police sent wireless message. Learned counsel has further referred to the testimony of PW5-Dr. H S Sohal, Assistant Professor, Orthopedics, SGTB Hospital, Amritsar, who has deposed that he did not mention as to where and how the patient sustained the injuries. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no mention of the fact as to whether the injuries received by the injured were independent or communicating with each other. His further submission is that as per the case of the prosecution, the fire was allegedly shot from a close range but no pellet was recovered from the place of occurrence.

16. Learned counsel has further referred to the statements of DW1-Kulwinder Singh and DW2-Jagbir Singh and tried to establish a case of alibi with regard to the presence of Rajinder Singh and Gurinderbir Singh, appellants, that they were present at their respective working places at the time of alleged occurrence. He has submitted that the explanation rendered by the prosecution that the appellants were very influential people, cannot be accepted as truthful version as the complainant was a supporter of S. Manjit Singh, a candidate in the Assembly Election, was himself a retired Police officer. The learned counsel has referred to the statement of Harjinder Kaur, PW3, who has stated that the seat of injury was left forearm whereas as per the MLR, the injuries suffered are on left CRA No.548-SB of 2001 and CRR No.1906 of 2001 7 upper arm. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that there is contradiction in the ocular version and medical evidence on record.

17. Learned counsel has lastly argued that the case under Section 307 IPC is not made out against the accused in view of their conduct as the intention to cause death is not proved. Moreover, even as per the case of the prosecution, a single shot was fired and if the appellants wanted to cause any harm to the complainant, they would not have taken the complainant to hospital and would not have remained present there during his admission.

18. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted that the case of the prosecution is fully established on the basis of the statement made by the complainant which further stands fully supported by the statement of Harjinder Kaur, PW3, who herself is an eyewitness to the occurrence.

19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

20. The occurrence in the instant case took place on

18.6.1991. The complainant was initially taken to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, and was subsequently shifted to SGTB Hospital, Amritsar. He was discharged on 6.8.1991. However, it has come in the testimony of the complainant-Chanchal Singh, that after seeking permission from the Court, he got himself medically examined on

12.8.1991 at 5.45 p.m. As per the MLR, Ex.PA, dated 12.8.1991, the complainant suffered multiple fractures which were declared grievous in nature. As the appellant remained hospitalized till 6.8.1991, thereafter he filed a complaint on 26.9.1991 which was dismissed due to non-prosecution, however, the complainant filed a fresh complaint on 6.5.1992. CRA No.548-SB of 2001 and CRR No.1906 of 2001 8

21. Though, there is a delay in moving the complaint, it is the admitted case of the complainant that he remained hospitalized from

18.6.1991 to 06.08.1991, coupled with the fact that it has come in the testimony of Harjinder Kaur, PW3, that Police Post was there in the Village and a wireless message with regard to the incident was flashed, did raise doubt about the case of the prosecution but the complainant has categorically named the assailant-Gurinderbir Singh. If no action was taken by the Police, the complainant cannot be allowed to suffer on account of the lapse on the part of the Police. Therefore, in my considered view, though the complaint was moved belatedly but the same is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

22. The complainant, who is an injured witness, and his wife, Harjinder Kaur, who is an eyewitness to the occurrence, have fully supported the case of the prosecution. There is no discrepancy on the material aspects of the case as the assailant Gurinderbir Singh is specifically named this appellant and the complainant happens to be a supporter of the rival candidate who tried to dissuade the appellant to support the candidature of S. Manjit Singh in the Assembly Election, clearly establishes that there was a motive with the appellants to commit the crime.

23. I do not find any merit in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the statement of Harjinder Kaur, PW3, there is inconsistency in the ocular version and medical evidence. In my opinion, inconsistency, if any, rather adds truthfulness and veracity to the statement of said witness. If she had been tutored, then she would have precisely given the minute description of the injury. Moreover, the fact remained that the injury was suffered on the left arm, therefore, in my considered opinion, this variation in her CRA No.548-SB of 2001 and CRR No.1906 of 2001 9 version is not material in the instant case, particularly in view of the medical evidence and the statement of the complainant.

24. The genesis of the crime travels to the period when the State was passing through difficult phase. The inaction by the Police despite their presence in the Village goes to establish that the appellants were influential persons who not only caused injuries to the complainant but also threatened him and his wife not to lodge any FIR. However, this is also proved on record that after the occurrence, the appellants removed the complainant to the hospital. It can be said perhaps, after the occurrence, the appellants had realized that they had overdone their job and it appears that in order to save their skin, the complainant was moved to the hospital.

25. In the testimony of the complainant, only the appellant- Gurinderbir Singh, was named, none of the other co-accused- appellants have been named nor any role has been attributed to them nor they caused any injury to the complainant, therefore, their identity is not fully established in the instant case. Accordingly, the appeal qua appellants No.1-Jasbir Singh alias Bana, No.3-Rajinder Singh alias Jindi and No.4-Gulzar Singh, is allowed and they are acquitted of the charge after giving them the benefit of doubt. Their conviction and sentence are set aside.

26. However, the case against the appellant-Gurinderbir Singh alias Beera, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, his conviction under Section 307 is maintained.

27. The occurrence took place in the year 1991 and more than 19 years have already elapsed. The appellant is more than 66 years of age and was admitted to bail on 09.05.2001. The present case CRA No.548-SB of 2001 and CRR No.1906 of 2001 10 being a complaint case, the appellant never suffered any incarceration.

28. In view of the same, the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant who is present in the Court is reduced till the rising of the Court. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the injured-complainant as compensation within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, over and above the fine imposed by the learned trial Court, failing which, the appeal of Gurinderbir Singh shall be deemed to be dismissed.

30. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly. The revision petition filed on behalf of the complainant is dismissed as withdrawn as prayed for.

02.12.2010 CHAUHAN) atulsethi (JITENDRA JUDGE