Bahadur Man Bahadur v. Punjab State of Punjab
Case Details
(O&M) CRA-D-348-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 1 ) FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CRA-D-348-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA ate of Decision: 05.04.2025 Date of Decision: Bahadur Man Bahadur … Appellant Versus Punjab State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate as Amicus Curiae, . Arnav Sood, Advocate as Amicus Curiae, for the appellant. Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. Man Bahadur assails Man Bahadur assails judgment dated 02.03.2005 Sessions 02.03.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana Ludhiana, wherein the trial Court while holding him guilty of having wherein the trial Court while holding him guilty of having committed offence under Section 302 read with Section committed offence under Section , sentenced 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentenced amounting to to undergo imprisonment for life and imposed a fine amounting to to undergo imprisonment for life and him to undergo imprisonment for life and Rs.10,000/- -. 2. The matter arises out of FIR No. 152 dated 04.07.2000 registered at Police matter arises out of FIR No.152 dated 04.07.2000 registered at Police 152 dated 04.07.2000 registered at Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana, under Section 302/34 IPC at the instance of Station Focal Point, Ludhiana, under Section 302/34 IPC at the instance of Station Focal Point, Ludhiana, under Section 302/34 IPC at the instance of Station Focal Point, Ludhiana, under Section 302/34 IPC at the instance of Jaspal Singh. The translated gist of Jaspal Singh’s Jaspal Singh. on the Jaspal Singh’s statement (Ex.PD) on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PD/2) was lodged reads basis of which FIR (Ex. reads as under: I am resident of Ludhiana and have built a service station under the name & “I am resident of Ludhiana and have built a service station under the name & I am resident of Ludhiana and have built a service station under the name & I am resident of Ludhiana and have built a service station under the name & style of ‘Preet Service Station’ in Hira Naga style of ‘Preet Service Station’ r, Ludhiana. I had employed in Hira Nagar, Ludhiana. I had employed for the last 3 years for service of vehicles. I had also Parvesh Kumar for the last 3 years for service of vehicles. I had also for the last 3 years for service of vehicles. I had also Parvesh Kumar employed two other employees namely Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur employed two other employees namely Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur employed two other employees namely Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur employed two other employees namely Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur were somehow having some kind of jealousy with about 2 months back, who were somehow having some kind of jealousy with were somehow having some kind of jealousy with about 2 months back VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-348-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 2 ) and used to quarrel with him frequently as they felt that Parvesh Kumar and used to quarrel with him frequently as they felt that and used to quarrel with him frequently as they felt that Parvesh Kumar Last night Parvesh Kumar used to indulge in back-biting against them. Last night Parvesh Kumar used to indulge in back Parvesh Kumar used to indulge in back at about 11.30 PM, when I was present in my house, then 03.07.2000) at about 11.30 PM, when I was present in my house, then at about 11.30 PM, when I was present in my house, then (03.07.2000 Satnam Singh, driver of JMT Company, informed Satnam Singh, driver of JM ically that Company, informed me telephonically that Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur were quarrelling with Parvesh Kumar. I Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur were quarrelling with Parvesh Kumar. I Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur were quarrelling with Parvesh Kumar. I Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur were quarrelling with Parvesh Kumar. I rushed to the service station where I met Satnam Singh at the gate and rushed to the service station where I met Satnam Singh at the gate and rushed to the service station where I met Satnam Singh at the gate and rushed to the service station where I met Satnam Singh at the gate and thereafter we went inside and saw that thereafter rehri Parvesh Kumar was lying on a rehri and had been caught hold by Man Bahadur from his legs while Jang Bahadur had been caught hold by Man Bahadur from his legs while Jang Bahadur by Man Bahadur from his legs while Jang Bahadur was giving blows with iron pipe on his face and forehead. The said two was giving blows with iron pipe on his face and forehead. The said two was giving blows with iron pipe on his face and forehead. The said two was giving blows with iron pipe on his face and forehead. The said two persons upon noticing us ran away from the spot after leaving persons upon noticing us the iron pipe ran away from the spot after leaving the iron pipe there. Parvesh Kumar was smeared in blood and had expired. there. I left Satnam Parvesh Kumar was smeared in blood and had expired. I left Satnam and went to call acquaintances of Parvesh Kumar Singh near the dead body and went to call acquaintances of Parvesh Kumar and went to call acquaintances of Parvesh Kumar Singh near from the village. I alongwith Anil Kumar, a co from the village. villager of Parvesh Kumar, I alongwith Anil Kumar, a co-villager of Parvesh Kumar, proceeding to the police station to lodge report when you met me and was proceeding to the police station to lodge report when you met me and proceeding to the police station to lodge report when you met me and proceeding to the police station to lodge report when you met me and recorded my statement. I have heard the statement and the recorded my statement same is correct. heard the statement and the same is correct. Action be taken. Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur in connivance with each Action be taken. Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur in connivance with each Action be taken. Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur in connivance with each Action be taken. Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur in connivance with each other have murdered Parvesh Kumar.” other have murdered Parvesh Kumar. 3. The aforesaid statement was recorded on 04.07.2000 at The aforesaid statement was recorded on (afternoon) 04.07.2000 at 12.30 PM (afternoon) by Inspector Paramjit Singh. The same was sent to the Police Station for by Inspector Paramjit Singh. The same was sent to the Police Station for by Inspector Paramjit Singh. The same was sent to the Police Station for by Inspector Paramjit Singh. The same was sent to the Police Station for
Facts
Special reports were sent to the Illaqa Magistrate and registration of FIR. Special reports were sent to the Illaqa Magistrate and Special reports were sent to the Illaqa Magistrate and registration of FIR. also to other senior police officers. Thereafter, also to other senior police officers. Inspector Paramjit Singh went Thereafter, Inspector Paramjit Singh went nce and conducted inquest proceedings. The dead to the place of occurrence and conducted inquest proceedings. The dead nce and conducted inquest proceedings. The dead to the place of occurre body was got photographed. Blood stained iron pipe recovered from the spot body was got photographed. Blood stained iron pipe recovered from the spot body was got photographed. Blood stained iron pipe recovered from the spot body was got photographed. Blood stained iron pipe recovered from the spot as well as blood stained soil were taken into possession and were separately as well as blood stained soil were taken into possession and were separately as well as blood stained soil were taken into possession and were separately as well as blood stained soil were taken into possession and were separately sealed. Post-mortem examination was got conducted on sealed. Post the dead body of mortem examination was got conducted on the dead body of Parvesh Kumar. Accused Man Bahadur was arrested on Parvesh Kumar. 10.07.2000. Co- Accused Man Bahadur was arrested on 10.07.2000. Co accused Jang Bahadur, however, could not be arrested and was declared a accused Jang Bahadur, however, could not be arrested and was declared a accused Jang Bahadur, however, could not be arrested and was declared a accused Jang Bahadur, however, could not be arrested and was declared a proclaimed offender. proclaimed offender. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-348-DB-2005 (O&M) 4. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against Upon conclusion of investigation, challan accused Man was presented against accused Man ( 3 ) Bahadur on on 16.10.2000 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, who committed who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 13.11.2000 where charges were framed against accused Man Bahadur for where charges were framed against accused Man Bahadur for where charges were framed against accused Man Bahadur for offence punishable under punishable under Section 302/34 IPC on 30.11.2000 to which he /34 IPC on 30.11.2000 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. pleaded not guilty and claimed trial 5. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 13 PWs The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as PWs. The gist of their testimonies is being briefly referred to herein The gist of their testimonies is being briefly referred to herein under:- PW-1 Dr. U.S.Sooch, Dr. U.S.Sooch, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana who had Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of conducted Parvesh mortem examination on the dead body of Parvesh Kumar on 04.07.2000, proved the post Kumar on , proved the post-mortem report as Ex.P mortem report as Ex.PA, . He opined wherein he described the injuries found on the dead body. He opined wherein he described the injuries found on the dead body wherein he described the injuries found on the dead body head injury, which was sufficient to cause that the cause of death was head injury, which was sufficient to cause head injury, which was sufficient to cause that the cause of death was death in ordinary course of nature. death in ordinary course of nature. death in ordinary course of nature. PW-2 HC Kuld who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence HC Kuldeep Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW-2/A, wherein he deposed that his affidavit Ex. he was posted as , wherein he deposed that he was posted as A/MHC, P.S.Focal Point, Ludhiana A/MHC Inspector Focal Point, Ludhiana and that on 04.07.2000, Inspector Paramjit Singh had deposited with him case property i.e. Paramjit Singh had deposited with him case property i.e. parcel parcels containing iron pipe, blood stained soil containing iron pipe, as well as blood stained soil and clothes as well as rickshaw rehri. He further deposed that on rickshaw rehri the case He further deposed that on 24.07.2000, the case property except rickshaw rehri was handed property except over to Constable Janak was handed over to Constable Janak Raj for the purpose of getting a docket issued from the office of SSP, Raj for the purpose of getting a docket issued from the office of SSP, Raj for the purpose of getting a docket issued from the office of SSP, Raj for the purpose of getting a docket issued from the office of SSP, Ludhiana, which was accordingly issued on the same day and the Ludhiana, which was accordingly issued on the same day and the Ludhiana, which was accordingly issued on the same day and the Ludhiana, which was accordingly issued on the same day and the case property was deposited back with him. case property He further deposed that deposited back with him. He further deposed that on 28.07.2000 28.07.2000, the case property was Constable Janak , the case property was handed over to Constable Janak Raj for depositing the same in the office of Raj Chemical Examiner, for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Examiner, , but could not be deposited on account of certain objections Patiala, but could not be deposited on account of certain objections , but could not be deposited on account of certain objections Patiala alkhana and it was subsequently on and was deposited back in the malkhana and it was subsequently on alkhana and it was subsequently on and was deposited back in the m 04.08.2000 that the case property was again sent to the office of 04.08.2000 that the case property was again sent to the office of 04.08.2000 that the case property was again sent to the office of 04.08.2000 that the case property was again sent to the office of Chemical Examiner, Patiala, which was deposited on the same day Chemical Examiner, Patiala, which was deposited on the same day Chemical Examiner, Patiala, which was deposited on the same day Chemical Examiner, Patiala, which was deposited on the same day VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-348-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 4 ) and that as long as the case property and that as long as remained in his possession, the case property remained in his possession, the same was not tampered with. same w PW-3 HC Tarsem Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence HC Tarsem Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW-3/A, wherein he deposed that his affidavit Ex. , wherein he deposed that on 04.07.2000, on 04.07.2000, he on the was posted as MHC, P.S.Focal Point, Ludhiana and that on the was posted as MHC, P.S.Focal Point, Ludhiana and that was posted as MHC, P.S.Focal Point, Ludhiana and that , he prepared the special reports and directions of ASI Avtar Singh, he prepared the special reports and , he prepared the special reports and directions of ASI Avtar Singh r Singh to deliver the same to the learned CJM directed HC Satwinder Singh to deliver the same to the learned CJM r Singh to deliver the same to the learned CJM directed HC Satwind and that HC Satwinder Singh accordingly and other senior officers and that HC Satwinder Singh accordingly and that HC Satwinder Singh accordingly and other got the needful done. got the needful done. PW-4 HC Satwinder Singh HC Satwinder Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW-4/A, wherein he deposed that his affidavit Ex. , wherein he deposed that on 04.07.2000, on 04.07.2000, he had delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and to other had delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and to other had delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and to other had delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and to other senior officers. senior officers PW-5 HC Milkha Singh HC Milkha Singh stated that on 04.07.2000, he was posted at Police 04.07.2000, he was posted at Police Post Moti Nagar, under Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana Post Moti and was Nagar, under Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana and was associated with Inspector Paramjit Singh for the purpose of associated with Inspector Paramjit Singh for the purpose of associated with Inspector Paramjit Singh for the purpose of associated with Inspector Paramjit Singh for the purpose of investigation of the present case. He stated that the blood stained iron investigation of the present case. He stated that the blood stained iron investigation of the present case. He stated that the blood stained iron investigation of the present case. He stated that the blood stained iron pipe and blood stained soil were recovered from the spot in his pipe and blood stained soil were recovered from the spot in his pipe and blood stained soil were recovered from the spot in his pipe and blood stained soil were recovered from the spot in his presence and that he had signed on the recovery memos. He further presence and that he had signed on the recovery memos. He further presence and that he had signed on the recovery memos. He further presence and that he had signed on the recovery memos. He further entrusted the dead body of stated that Inspector Paramjit Singh had entrusted the dead body of stated that Inspector Paramjit Singh had stated that Inspector Paramjit Singh had Parvesh Kumar to him for getting the post Parvesh Kumar to him mortem examination for getting the post-mortem examination conducted and that he accordingly got the needful done. conducted and that he accordingly got the needful done. conducted and that he accordingly got the needful done. stated in tune Jaspal Singh at whose instance the FIR was lodged, stated in tune Jaspal Singh at whose instance the FIR was lodged PW-6 Jaspal Singh at whose instance the FIR was lodged got recorded before with his statement (Ex.PD), which he had got recorded before with his statement (Ex.PD), which he with his statement (Ex.PD), which he Inspector Paramjit Singh on 04.07.2000 Inspector Paramjit Singh on 04.07.2000. PW-7 Constable who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence Constable Janak Raj, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW-7/A, wherein he deposed that his .07.2000, , wherein he deposed that on 24.07.2000, Kuldeep Singh had handed over to him the case property for MHC Kuldeep Singh had handed over to him the case property for Kuldeep Singh had handed over to him the case property for MHC which getting a docket issued from the office of the SSP, Ludhiana, which getting a docket issued from the office of the SSP, Ludhiana, getting a docket issued from the office of the SSP, Ludhiana, he accordingly and thereafter deposited the case property accordingly got issued and thereafter deposited the case property and thereafter deposited the case property . He further deposed that with MHC Kuldeep Singh on the same day. He further deposed that with MHC Kuldeep Singh on the same day with MHC Kuldeep Singh on the same day VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-348-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 5 ) had handed over to him the case 28.07.2000, MHC Kuldeep Singh had handed over to him the case 28.07.2000, MHC Kuldeep Singh on 28.07.2000, MHC Kuldeep Singh property for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Examiner, property for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Examiner, property for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Examiner, property for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Examiner, Patiala, but on account of some objections Patiala the same could not be n account of some objections, the same could not be on return, he deposited the same with MHC Kuldeep deposited and on return, he deposited the same with MHC Kuldeep on return, he deposited the same with MHC Kuldeep deposited and Singh. He further deposed that on 04.08.2000, MHC Kuldeep Singh Singh. He further deposed that on 04.08.2000, MHC Kuldeep Singh Singh. He further deposed that on 04.08.2000, MHC Kuldeep Singh Singh. He further deposed that on 04.08.2000, MHC Kuldeep Singh had again handed over to him the case property for depositing the had again handed over to him the case property for depositing the had again handed over to him the case property for depositing the had again handed over to him the case property for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Examiner, Patiala same in t , which he he office of Chemical Examiner, Patiala, which he accordingly deposited on the same day accordingly the parcels on the same day and that as long as the parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with. remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with. remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with. PW-8 Shakti Kuma Shakti Kumar stated that he had taken the photographs Ex.P1 & r stated that he had taken the photographs Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 of the dead body and proved the negatives thereof as Ex.P3 & Ex.P2 of the dead body and proved the negatives thereof as Ex.P3 & Ex.P2 of the dead body and proved the negatives thereof as Ex.P3 & Ex.P2 of the dead body and proved the negatives thereof as Ex.P3 & Ex.P4. Ex.P4. PW-9 Harminder Singh, draftsman, stated that he had prepared the scaled Harminder Singh, draftsman, stated that he had prepared the scaled stated that he had prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence and proved the same as Ex.PW- site plan of the place of occurrence and proved the same as Ex.PW site plan of the place of occurrence and proved the same as Ex.PW site plan of the place of occurrence and proved the same as Ex.PW 9/A. 9/A. PW-10 Constable Gurdeep Singh, nstable Gurdeep Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW-10/A evidence his affidavit Ex. /A, wherein he deposed that on 04.07.2000, Inspector Paramjit Singh 04.07.2000 the statement Inspector Paramjit Singh had handed over the statement and sent him to the Police Station for getting of Jaspal Singh to him and sent him to the Police Station for getting and sent him to the Police Station for getting of Jaspal Singh to him and that he accordingly got the needful done. the FIR registered and that he accordingly got the needful done. the PW-11 Inspector Paramjit Singh , who is the Investigating Officer of the Inspector Paramjit Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the , who is the Investigating Officer of the present case, stated in detail with regard to the investigation present case, stated in detail with regard to the investigation present case, stated in detail with regard to the investigation present case, stated in detail with regard to the investigation He proved various documents/memos conducted in the matter. He proved various documents/memos He proved various documents/memos conducted in the matter. ng the course of investigation. prepared during the course of investigation. prepared duri PW-12 Anil Kumar stated that he knew Parvesh Kumar (deceased), who Anil Kumar stated that he knew Parvesh Kumar (deceased), who stated that he knew Parvesh Kumar (deceased), who 04.07.2000 Jaspal Singh, belonged to his village and that on 04.07.2000 Jaspal Singh, belonged to his village and that on belonged to his village and that on employer of Parvesh Kumar, came to his office and informed him employer of Parvesh Kumar, came to his office and informed him employer of Parvesh Kumar, came to his office and informed him employer of Parvesh Kumar, came to his office and informed him Kumar had been murdered by Man Bahadur and Jang that Parvesh Kumar had been murdered by Man Bahadur and Jang Kumar had been murdered by Man Bahadur and Jang that Parvesh Bahadur and thereafter he accompanied Jaspal Singh to his service Bahadur and thereafter he accompanied Jaspal Singh to his service Bahadur and thereafter he accompanied Jaspal Singh to his service Bahadur and thereafter he accompanied Jaspal Singh to his service station where the dead body of Parvesh Kumar was lying. He stated station where the dead body of Parvesh Kumar was lying. He stated station where the dead body of Parvesh Kumar was lying. He stated station where the dead body of Parvesh Kumar was lying. He stated that after leaving Satnam Singh near the dead body, he (Anil Kumar) that after leaving Satnam Singh near the dead body, he (Anil Kumar) that after leaving Satnam Singh near the dead body, he (Anil Kumar) that after leaving Satnam Singh near the dead body, he (Anil Kumar) VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-348-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 6 ) ith Jaspal Singh proceeded to lodge the report with the police alongwith Jaspal Singh proceeded to lodge the report with the police ith Jaspal Singh proceeded to lodge the report with the police alongw and that the police party met them on the way and recorded the and that the police party met them on the way and recorded the and that the police party met them on the way and recorded the and that the police party met them on the way and recorded the statement of Jaspal Singh. He further stated that he identified the statement of Jaspal Singh. He further stated that he identified the statement of Jaspal Singh. He further stated that he identified the statement of Jaspal Singh. He further stated that he identified the and his statement was recorded by the police. dead body and his statement was recorded by the police. dead body PW-13 Satnam Singh he was employed as a driver on a truck Satnam Singh stated that he was employed as a driver on a truck he was employed as a driver on a truck belonging to JMT Transport Company belonging to and that the trucks of the JMT Transport Company and that the trucks of the company used to be parked at the service station of the complainant company used to be parked at the service station of the complainant company used to be parked at the service station of the complainant company used to be parked at the service station of the complainant Kumar (deceased), i.e. Preet Service Station. He stated that Parvesh Kumar (deceased), i.e. Preet Service Station. He stated that Parvesh i.e. Preet Service Station. He stated that Parvesh Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur used to work at the service station Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur used to work at the service station Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur used to work at the service station Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur used to work at the service station and that while Parvesh Kumar was and that while Parvesh Kumar faithful servant of Jaspal Singh, was a faithful servant of Jaspal Singh, accused Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur were not faithful persons accused Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur were not faithful persons accused Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur were not faithful persons accused Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur were not faithful persons respect of which Parvesh and used to steal fuel from vehicles in respect of which Parvesh and used to steal fuel from vehicles in and used to steal fuel from vehicles in Kumar used to complain against them to Jaspal Singh, proprietor, Kumar used to complain against them to Jaspal Singh, proprietor, Kumar used to complain against them to Jaspal Singh, proprietor, Kumar used to complain against them to Jaspal Singh, proprietor, Parvesh Kumar leading to frequent quarrels between the deceased Parvesh Kumar leading to frequent quarrels between the deceased leading to frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur. He further stated and the accused Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur. He further stated and the accused Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur. He further stated and the accused Man Bahadur and Jang Bahadur. He further stated to kill Parvesh Kumar in case he that the accused had also threatened to kill Parvesh Kumar in case he that the accused had also threatened that the accused had also threatened complaints against them. He further did not desist from making complaints against them. He further complaints against them. He further did not desist from making he went inside the service station to park stated that on 03.07.2000, he went inside the service station to park he went inside the service station to park stated that on and instructed Parvesh Kumar to and instructed Parvesh Kumar his truck at about 10.30 PM and instructed Parvesh Kumar his truck at about 10.30 PM his truck and went to sleep upstairs. At about 11.30 PM, he lookafter his truck and went to sleep upstairs. At about 11.30 PM, he his truck and went to sleep upstairs. At about 11.30 PM, he lookafter heard cries of Parvesh Kumar and he saw that while Jang Bahadur heard cries of Parvesh Kumar and he saw that while Jang Bahadur heard cries of Parvesh Kumar and he saw that while Jang Bahadur heard cries of Parvesh Kumar and he saw that while Jang Bahadur , Man Bahadur, who was was holding the legs of Parvesh Kumar, Man Bahadur, who was was holding the legs of Parvesh Kumar was holding the legs of Parvesh Kumar carrying an iron pipe, was giving blows with the same. He woke up carrying an iron pipe, was giving blows with the same. He woke up carrying an iron pipe, was giving blows with the same. He woke up carrying an iron pipe, was giving blows with the same. He woke up the and informed him that Jang Bahadur and Man Muneem (Manager) and informed him that Jang Bahadur and Man and informed him that Jang Bahadur and Man beating Parvesh Kumar and also telephonically Bahadur were beating Parvesh Kumar and also telephonically beating Parvesh Kumar and also telephonically Bahadur were informed Jaspal Singh, proprietor of Preet Service Station, who informed Jaspal Singh, proprietor of Preet Service Station, who informed Jaspal Singh, proprietor of Preet Service Station, who informed Jaspal Singh, proprietor of Preet Service Station, who . He assured him that he would be reaching there in 15/20 minutes. He assured him that he would be reaching there in 15/20 minutes assured him that he would be reaching there in 15/20 minutes stated that he and Muneem (Manager) stated from the gate (Manager) peeped inside from the gate Man Bahadur was giving beatings with iron pipe to Man Bahadur was giving beatings with iron pipe and saw that Man Bahadur was giving beatings with iron pipe and saw that Jang Bahadur was holding the legs. He further Parvesh Kumar while Jang Bahadur was holding the legs. He further Jang Bahadur was holding the legs. He further Parvesh Kumar while stated that after 15/20 minutes, Jaspal stated that Singh came there and shortly , Jaspal Singh came there and shortly when Jaspal thereafter even the police reached there. He stated that when Jaspal thereafter even the police reached there. He stated tha thereafter even the police reached there. He stated tha Parvesh Kumar Singh came there and opened the gate, they found Parvesh Kumar Singh came there and opened the gate, they found Singh came there and opened the gate, they found VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-348-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 7 ) lying on a rehri in an injured condition lying on a . He further stated that in an injured condition. He further stated that , who was in an inebriated condition, could not accused Man Bahadur, who was in an inebriated condition, could not , who was in an inebriated condition, could not accused run away and was caught by Jaspal Singh, chowkidar and by them, run away and was caught by Jaspal Singh, chowkidar and by them run away and was caught by Jaspal Singh, chowkidar and by them run away and was caught by Jaspal Singh, chowkidar and by them whereas accused Jang Bahadur ran away after scaling the wall. whereas accused Jang Bahadur ran away after scaling the wall. whereas accused Jang Bahadur ran away after scaling the wall. 6. Man Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused Man Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused Bahadur was hadur was recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the entire case of prosecution of prosecution and pleaded false implication. He raised a plea that false implication. He raised a plea that he has been falsely implicated and in fact he has been falsely implicated Kumar (deceased), who fact Parvesh Kumar (deceased), who killed by was having illicit relations with the wife of Jaspal Singh, had been killed by was having illicit relations with the wife of Jaspal Singh, had was having illicit relations with the wife of Jaspal Singh, had Jaspal Singh and that Jaspal Singh while using his influence implicated him Jaspal Singh and that Jaspal Singh while using his influence implicated him Jaspal Singh and that Jaspal Singh while using his influence implicated him Jaspal Singh and that Jaspal Singh while using his influence implicated him falsely. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence. falsely. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence. falsely. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence. 7. The learned trial Court, upon he learned trial Court, upon marshalling the brought on record, marshalling the evidence brought on record, offence punishable under held that the charges framed against the accused for offence punishable under held that the charges framed against the accused for held that the charges framed against the accused for stood duly proved and accordingly Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC stood duly proved and accordingly stood duly proved and accordingly Section 302 sentenced him him as mentioned above. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the Learned counsel for the impugned judgment, while assailing the impugned judgment, he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that false submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that false he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that false submitted that from the fact that the statements of the alleged implication would be evident from the fact that the statements of the alleged from the fact that the statements of the alleged implication would be eviden eye-witnesses a re inconsistent on material aspects of the case, which clearly witnesses are inconsistent on material aspects of the case, which clearly re inconsistent on material aspects of the case, which clearly they had never witnessed the alleged murder. It has been submitted show that they had never witnessed the alleged murder. It has been submitted they had never witnessed the alleged murder. It has been submitted they had never witnessed the alleged murder. It has been submitted witness, has been introduced subsequently that Satnam Singh, who is an eye-witness, has been introduced subsequently witness, has been introduced subsequently that Satnam Singh accused Man Bahadur had been and that while Satnam Singh stated that accused Man Bahadur had been and that while Satnam Singh stated that and that while Satnam Singh stated that caught at the spot, the case of prosecution is that Man Bahadur was arrested caught at the spot, the case of prosecution is that Man Bahadur was arrested caught at the spot, the case of prosecution is that Man Bahadur was arrested caught at the spot, the case of prosecution is that Man Bahadur was arrested much later i.e. on 10.07.2000. It has been much later i.e. on submitted that the conduct of the been submitted that the conduct of the eye-witnesses namely PW witnesses namely PW-6 Jaspal Singh, PW Muneem 6 Jaspal Singh, PW-13 Satnam Singh and Muneem VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-348-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 8 ) (Manager) is rather unnatural inasmuch as despite witnessing the accused is rather unnatural inasmuch as despite witnessing the accused is rather unnatural inasmuch as despite witnessing the accused , they did not choose to intervene although it inflicting injuries to the deceased, they did not choose to intervene although it , they did not choose to intervene although it inflicting injuries to the deceased edged is not the case that the accused were armed with any deadly or sharp-edged is not the case that the accused were armed with any deadly is not the case that the accused were armed with any deadly n submitted that although only 4 injuries were weapon. It has further been submitted that although only 4 injuries were n submitted that although only 4 injuries were weapon. It has further bee found on the person of the deceased, which would not have taken more than 5 found on the person of the deceased, which would not have taken more than 5 found on the person of the deceased, which would not have taken more than 5 found on the person of the deceased, which would not have taken more than 5 minutes, but as per the evidence led by the prosecution, the beatings minutes, but as per the evidence led by the prosecution, the beatings minutes, but as per the evidence led by the prosecution, the beatings minutes, but as per the evidence led by the prosecution, the beatings continued for more than 20 minutes inasmuch as continued for more than 2 h heard inasmuch as when Satnam Singh heard the cries of Parvesh Kumar at about 11.30 PM and saw that he was being the cries of Parvesh Kumar at about 11.30 PM and saw that he was being the cries of Parvesh Kumar at about 11.30 PM and saw that he was being the cries of Parvesh Kumar at about 11.30 PM and saw that he was being inflicted injuries, he firstly woke up the Muneem inflicted injuries, he thereafter Muneem (Manager) and thereafter came there after also informed Jaspal Singh (complainant) telephonically who came there after also informed Jaspal Singh (complainant) telephonically also informed Jaspal Singh (complainant) telephonically about 15/20 minutes and it was thereafter they entered into the premises after about 15/20 minutes and it was thereafter they entered into the premises after about 15/20 minutes and it was thereafter they entered into the premises after about 15/20 minutes and it was thereafter they entered into the premises after the accused were still present there giving opening the door and saw that the accused were still present there giving the accused were still present there giving opening the door beatings to Parvesh Kumar (deceased). It has further been submitted beatings to Parvesh Kumar (deceased) that . It has further been submitted that Muneem (Man (Manager), who had been informed by Satnam Singh the first ager), who had been informed by Satnam Singh in the first and that under these circumstances, instance somehow has not been examined and that under these circumstances, and that under these circumstances, instance somehow ffect of aforesaid the collective effect of aforesaid ffect of aforesaid the collective infirmities would entitle infirmities would entitle infirmities would entitle the the the accused/appellant to be acquitted. accused/appellant to be acquitted 9. appeal, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case where Opposing the appeal, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case where appeal, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case where Opposing the allegations stand duly established from the consistent testimonies of the the allegations stand duly established from the consistent testimonies of the allegations stand duly established from the consistent testimonies of the allegations stand duly established from the consistent testimonies of the lead to witnesses and that minor inconsistencies or discrepancies cannot lead to witnesses and that minor inconsistencies or discrepancies cannot eye-witnesses and that minor inconsistencies or discrepancies cannot an inference that the accused has been falsely implicated. It has, thus, been an inference that the accused has been falsely implicated. It has, thus, been an inference that the accused has been falsely implicated. It has, thus, been an inference that the accused has been falsely implicated. It has, thus, been submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 10. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with
Legal Reasoning
injuries with iron pipe. Still further, we find that PW injuries with iron pipe. 13 Satnam Singh in his we find that PW-13 Satnam Singh in his hat the police had also come shortly after Jaspal examination-in-chief stated that the police had also come shortly after Jaspal hat the police had also come shortly after Jaspal examination it unexplained as to why the Singh reached at the spot, which again leaves it unexplained as to why the Singh reached at the spot, which again lea Singh reached at the spot, which again lea FIR was not lodged immediately. The relevant extract from the statement of FIR was not lodged immediately. The relevant extract from the statement of FIR was not lodged immediately. The relevant extract from the statement of FIR was not lodged immediately. The relevant extract from the statement of PW-13 Satnam Singh is reproduced herein under: 13 Satnam Singh is reproduced herein under: VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-348-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 13 ) peeped through the gate and we saw that Man “……………I and Muneem peeped through the gate and we saw that Man peeped through the gate and we saw that Man “……………I and Bahadur was giving beatings with iron pipe and Jang Bahadur was holding Bahadur was giving beatings with iron pipe and Jang Bahadur was holding Bahadur was giving beatings with iron pipe and Jang Bahadur was holding Bahadur was giving beatings with iron pipe and Jang Bahadur was holding the legs. Then after 15-20 minutes Jaspal Singh came there the legs. . He got the gate 20 minutes Jaspal Singh came there. He got the gate opened. After sometime, the police also ca opened. . When Jaspal Singh got After sometime, the police also came there. When Jaspal Singh got . He was in an the gate opened we found Parvesh Kumar lying on the rehri. He was in an the gate opened we found Parvesh Kumar lying on the the gate opened we found Parvesh Kumar lying on the injured condition. Accused Man Bahadur was in a drunken condition. He injured condition. Accused Man Bahadur was in a drunken condition. He injured condition. Accused Man Bahadur was in a drunken condition. He injured condition. Accused Man Bahadur was in a drunken condition. He accused Jang Bahadur jumped over the wall and could not run away. His co-accused Jang Bahadur jumped over the wall and accused Jang Bahadur jumped over the wall and could not run away. His co ran away. Accused was caught hold by Jaspal Singh ran a , Chowkidar and Accused was caught hold by Jaspal Singh, Chowkidar and ourselves……..” ourselves……..” the aforesaid discrepant Viewed in light of delay in lodging of FIR, the aforesaid discrepant Viewed in light of delay in lodging of FIR, 18. Viewed in light of delay in lodging of FIR, testimonies and the inconsistent account regarding arrest of accused/appellant testimonies and the inconsistent account regarding arrest of accused/appellant testimonies and the inconsistent account regarding arrest of accused/appellant testimonies and the inconsistent account regarding arrest of accused/appellant s certainly unsafe to rely upon the prosecution assume significance and it is certainly unsafe to rely upon the prosecution s certainly unsafe to rely upon the prosecution assume significance and it i version. 19. The aforesaid facts collectively would not justify conviction of the appellant The aforesaid facts collectively would not justify conviction of the appellant The aforesaid facts collectively would not justify conviction of the appellant The aforesaid facts collectively would not justify conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial Court and the same as recorded by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. The the same deserves to be set aside. The appeal, as such, is accepted and the impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal, as such, is accepted and the impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal, as such, is accepted and the impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal, as such, is accepted and the impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is is ordered to be acquitted of all the charges framed against ordered to be acquitted of all the charges framed against him. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary 20. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary compliance. compliance. GURVINDER SINGH GILL) (GURVINDER SINGH GILL JUDGE 05.04.2025 Vimal (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. the assistance o f learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-348-DB-2005 (O&M) the allegations are to the effect that Parvesh Kumar (deceased) had 11. Since the allegations are to the effect that Parvesh Kumar (deceased) had the allegations are to the effect that Parvesh Kumar (deceased) had the allegations are to the effect that Parvesh Kumar (deceased) had ( 9 ) been done to death by inflicting injuries with been done to death by inflicting injuries apposite to with an iron pipe, it is apposite to dence in this regard. The prosecution has first of all refer to the medical evidence in this regard. The prosecution has dence in this regard. The prosecution has first of all refer to the medical evi U.S.Sooch, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, examined PW-1 Dr. U.S.Sooch, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana U.S.Sooch, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana examined PW who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of who had conducted Parvesh mortem examination on the dead body of Parvesh Kumar on 04.07.2000. PW-1 Dr. U.S.Sooch Kumar on 04.07.2000 mortem report 1 Dr. U.S.Sooch proved the post-mortem report as Ex.PA, wherein he described the injuries found on the dead body as under as Ex.PA, wherein he described the injuries found on the dead body as Ex.PA, wherein he described the injuries found on the dead body as under: “1. Incised wound 3” x ½” x bone deep laced obliquely on the left forehead. Incised wound 3” x ½” x bone deep laced obliquely on the left forehead. Incised wound 3” x ½” x bone deep laced obliquely on the left forehead. Incised wound 3” x ½” x bone deep laced obliquely on the left forehead. Underneath bone was fractured and depressed. Rememrane were cut and brain Underneath bone was fractured and depressed. Rememrane were cut and brain Underneath bone was fractured and depressed. Rememrane were cut and brain Underneath bone was fractured and depressed. Rememrane were cut and brain matter was lacerated and were coming out of the wound matter was lacerated and . Clotted blood was were coming out of the wound. Clotted blood was present. Left orbit was fractured and eye ball was cut. present. Left orbit was fractured and eye ball was cut. present. Left orbit was fractured and eye ball was cut. 2. x ½” x bone deep horizontal on the left maxillary area and Incised wound 1.1/4” x ½” x bone deep horizontal on the left maxillary area and x ½” x bone deep horizontal on the left maxillary area and Incised wound the underneath bone was fractured with clotted blood. the underneath bone was fractured with clotted blood. the underneath bone was fractured with clotted blood. 3. 4. 1” x ½” through and through the right lower lip. Incised wound 1” x ½” through and through the right lower lip. Incised w Crush amputation of the left pinna partially with clotted blood.” Crush amputation of the left pinna partially with clotted blood. Crush amputation of the left pinna partially with clotted blood. 12. PW-1 further stated that as per his opinion the cause of death was head injury, further stated that as per his opinion the cause of death was head injury, the cause of death was head injury, Dr. which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW-1 Dr. which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary U.S.Sooch examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing was briefly cross-examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing examination so as substantial could be elicited during the course of his cross-examination so as substantial could be elicited during the course of his cross substantial could be elicited during the course of his cross As such, the factum of death being to either doubt his veracity or his opinion. As such, the factum of death being As such, the factum of death being to either doubt a homicidal death is duly established. a homicidal death is duly established. The material question would be as to whether the appellant (Man Bahadur) 13. The material question would be as to whether the appellant (Man Bahadur) The material question would be as to whether the appellant (Man Bahadur) The material question would be as to whether the appellant (Man Bahadur) alongwith Jang Bahadur had killed the deceased by inflicting injuries with an alongwith Jang Bahadur had killed the deceased by inflicting injuries with an alongwith Jang Bahadur had killed the deceased by inflicting injuries with an alongwith Jang Bahadur had killed the deceased by inflicting injuries with an iron pipe. on mainly banks upon the testimonies of PW-6 on mainly banks upon the testimonies of PW The prosecution mainly banks upon the testimonies of PW Jaspal Singh and PW-13 Satnam Singh. While PW Jaspal Singh and PW 6 Jaspal Singh 13 Satnam Singh. While PW-6 Jaspal Singh alleges that it was appellant Man Bahadur, who had held the (complainant) alleges that it was appellant Man Bahadur, who had held the alleges that it was appellant Man Bahadur, who had held the (complainant) VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-348-DB-2005 (O&M) deceased from his legs and that co-accused Jang deceased from his legs and that co ahadur had inflicted accused Jang Bahadur had inflicted ( 10 ) injuries, the other eye ies, the other eye-witness namely PW-13 Satnam Singh while describing 13 Satnam Singh while describing the occurrence vice versa inasmuch as he stated that it was occurrence attributed the role vice versa inasmuch as he stated that it was vice versa inasmuch as he stated that it was Jang Bahadur, who had held the deceased from his legs and it was appellant Jang Bahadur, who had held the deceased from his legs and it was appellant Jang Bahadur, who had held the deceased from his legs and it was appellant Jang Bahadur, who had held the deceased from his legs and it was appellant (Man Bahadur), who had inflicted injuries with (Man Bahadur), who had ffect of inflicted injuries with iron pipe. While the effect of may not be sufficient to doubt the case the aforesaid inconsistency ipso facto may not be sufficient to doubt the case may not be sufficient to doubt the case the aforesaid inconsistenc of prosecution, but there are certain other material aspects, which do render of prosecution, but there are certain other material aspects, which do render of prosecution, but there are certain other material aspects, which do render of prosecution, but there are certain other material aspects, which do render the case of prosecution doubtful. the case of prosecution doubtful. 14. It is pertinent to notice that while PW 13 Satnam Singh stated that accused is pertinent to notice that while PW-13 Satnam Singh stated that accused 13 Satnam Singh stated that accused Man Bahadur, who was in an inebriated condition, Man Bahadur caught at the spot , who was in an inebriated condition, was caught at the spot stated that both the accused had run away. As itself, but PW-6 Jaspal Singh stated that both the accused had run away. As stated that both the accused had run away. As itself, but PW per per the Investigating Officer the Investigating Officer i.e. PW i.e. Inspector Paramjit Singh, PW-11 Inspector Paramjit Singh accused/appellant Man Bahadur was, however, arrested on accused/appellant Man Bahadur was, however, arrested on 10.07.200 10.07.2000, Further, even the whereas the occurrence had taken place on 04.07.2000. Further, even the whereas the occurrence had taken place on whereas the occurrence had taken place on 13 Satnam (Manager), who had been informed first of all by PW-13 Satnam (Manager), who had been informed first of all by PW Muneem (Manager), who had been informed first of all by PW Singh about the incident, has not been examined by the prosecution. Singh about the incident, has not been examined by the prosecution. Singh about the incident, has not been examined by the prosecution. to be The conduct of the witnesses in the instant case also leaves much to be The conduct of the witnesses in the instant case also 15. The conduct of the witnesses in the instant case also explained inasmuch as while it was at about 11.30 explained inasmuch as that the hile it was at about 11.30 PM on 03.07.2000 that the occurrence was noticed by PW-13 Satnam Singh occurrence was noticed by PW firstly 13 Satnam Singh, who thereafter firstly and then telephonically informed the informed the Muneem (Manager) and then telephonically informed the and then telephonically informed the informed the was proprietor of the service station namely Jaspal Singh (PW-6) and it was proprietor of the service station namely Jaspal Singh (PW proprietor of the service station namely Jaspal Singh (PW when Jaspal Singh came at the spot that they opened the door and thereafter when Jaspal Singh came at the spot that they opened the door and when Jaspal Singh came at the spot that they opened the door and when Jaspal Singh came at the spot that they opened the door and o effort was made went inside where the occurrence was taking place, but no effort was made went inside where the occurrence was taking place went inside where the occurrence was taking place by them to catch the accused. Further, in by them to catch the accused. case, two persons had over- Further, in case, two persons had over VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-348-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 11 ) 4 minutes the deceased, then it would have been a matter of barely 3-4 minutes the deceased, then it would have been a matter of powered the deceased, then it would have been a matter of during which 4 injuries would have been inflicted to him during which story of the 4 injuries would have been inflicted to him, but the story of the the beatings were still going on when Jaspal Singh reached prosecution is that the beatings were still going on when Jaspal Singh reached the beatings were still going on when Jaspal Singh reached prosecution at the spot after about 15-20 minutes which at the spot after about 15 not in tune with the which is rather not in tune with the medical evidence as only 4 injuries were found on the dead body. medical evidence as only 4 injuries were found on the dead body. medical evidence as only 4 injuries were found on the dead body. 16. Adding salt to spice is the fact that there is gross delay of more than 12 hours Adding salt to spice is the fact that there is gross delay of more than 12 hours that there is gross delay of more than 12 hours in lodging the FIR. While in the case of a in lodging the FIR. While in rustic villager, it could be case of a naïve rustic villager, it could be in the present said that he may have been hesitant to approach the police, but in the present said that he may have been hesitant to approach the police, but said that he may have been hesitant to approach the police, but case, Satnam Singh, who had first witnessed the incident, had called the case, Satnam Singh, who had first witnessed the incident, had called the case, Satnam Singh, who had first witnessed the incident, had called the case, Satnam Singh, who had first witnessed the incident, had called the the of the Preet Service Station i.e. Jaspal Singh (PW-6), but even the of the Preet Service Station i.e. Jaspal Singh (PW proprietor of the Preet Service Station i.e. Jaspal Singh (PW proprietor did not choose to inform the police immediately proprietor did not cho A person, who is to inform the police immediately. A person, who is and as running a service station, would be fairly intelligent and worldly-wise and as running a service station, would be fairly intelligent and running a service station, would be fairly intelligent and such, the delay on his part in informing the police would cast a doubt such, the delay on his part in informing the police would cast a doubt such, the delay on his part in informing the police would cast a doubt such, the delay on his part in informing the police would cast a doubt regarding veracity of his version. He has tried to explain the delay by stating regarding veracity of his version. He has tried to explain the delay by stating regarding veracity of his version. He has tried to explain the delay by stating regarding veracity of his version. He has tried to explain the delay by stating he informed one Anil Kumar, who was related to the deceased and that that he informed one Anil Kumar, who was related to the deceased and that he informed one Anil Kumar, who was related to the deceased and that he informed one Anil Kumar, who was related to the deceased and that there in the morning and it was thereafter that the FIR he brought Anil Kumar there in the morning and it was thereafter that the FIR there in the morning and it was thereafter that the FIR he brought Anil Kumar Whenever there is delay in lodging the was lodged by him (Jaspal Singh). Whenever there is delay in lodging the Whenever there is delay in lodging the was lodged FIR, the Courts would tread cautiously. Although delay FIR, the Courts would not tread cautiously. Although delay ipso facto would not are other doubtful demolish the case of prosecution, but when there are other doubtful demolish the case of prosecution, but when there demolish the case of prosecution, but when there circumstances or inconsistencies in the case of prosecution, it certainly circumstances or inconsistencies in the case of prosecution, it certainly circumstances or inconsistencies in the case of prosecution, it certainly circumstances or inconsistencies in the case of prosecution, it certainly could be unsafe to rely upon the prosecution version as there could be unsafe to rely upon the prosecution version as there becomes unsafe to rely upon the prosecution version as there possibility of delay having been used to concoct a version. possibility of Harilal etc. Vs. been used to concoct a version. In Harilal etc. Vs. , Hon’ble Supreme Court Madhra Pardesh, AIR 2023 (SC) 4239, Hon’ble Supreme Court Madhra Pardesh, AIR 2023 (SC) 4239 State of Madhra Pardesh, AIR 2023 (SC) 4239 ution in case of delayed FIR while observing as under: sounded a note of caution in case of delayed FIR while observing as under: sounded a note VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.07 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-D-348-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 12 ) “19. Although there might not have been a specific question put to PW-9 Although there might not have been a specific question put to PW Although there might not have been a specific question put to PW as regards the delay in lodging but the fact that it was a lodging the FIR but the fact that it was a delayed FIR cannot be ignored. When an FIR is delayed, in absence delayed FIR cannot be ignored. When an FIR is delayed, in absence delayed FIR cannot be ignored. When an FIR is delayed, in absence of proper explanation, the courts must be on guard and test the of proper explanation, the courts must be on guard and test the of proper explanation, the courts must be on guard and test the evidence meticulously to rule out possibility of embellishments in the evidence meticulously to rule out possibility of embellishments in the evidence meticulously to rule out possibility of embellishments in the prosecution story, inasmuch as delay gives opportunity as delay gives opportunity for for deliberation and guess work. More so, in a case where probability of deliberation and guess work. More so, in a case where probability of deliberation and guess work. More so, in a case where probability of no one witnessing the incident is high, such as in a case of night no one witnessing the incident is high, such as in a case of night no one witnessing the incident is high, such as in a case of night occurrence in an open place or a public street.” occurrence in an open place or a public street. 17. ingh has stated in sharp contradiction In the present case, PW-13 Satnam Singh has stated in sharp contradiction ingh has stated in sharp contradiction In the present case, PW with the case of prosecution as regards apprehension of accused Man with the case of prosecution as regards apprehension of accused Man with the case of prosecution as regards apprehension of accused Man with the case of prosecution as regards apprehension of accused Man 13 Satnam Singh stated that Man Bahadur Bahadur inasmuch as while PW-13 Satnam Singh stated that Man Bahadur 13 Satnam Singh stated that Man Bahadur Bahadur inasmuch as while PW 6 Jaspal Singh) stated that both was caught at the spot, the complainant (PW-6 Jaspal Singh) stated that both was caught at the spot, the complainant (PW was caught at the spot, the complainant (PW about accused had run away. As per the Investigating Officer, it was after about accused had run away. As per the Investigating Officer, it was the accused had run away. As per the Investigating Officer, it was that the accused Man Bahadur was arrested. The a week i.e. on 10.07.2000 that the accused Man Bahadur was arrested. The that the accused Man Bahadur was arrested. The a week i.e. on manner of occurrence as stated by PW-6 Jaspal Singh and PW manner of occurrence as stated by PW 13 Satnam 6 Jaspal Singh and PW-13 Satnam Singh is also rather inconsistent inasmuch as while Singh is also rather inconsisten 6 Jaspal Singh inasmuch as while PW-6 Jaspal Singh (complainant) stated that it was appellant - (complainant) Man Bahadur, who had held the - Man Bahadur, who had held the accused Jang Bahadur had inflicted injuries deceased from his legs and co-accused Jang Bahadur had inflicted injuries accused Jang Bahadur had inflicted injuries deceased from his legs and co 13 Satnam Singh while describing the occurrence with iron pipe, PW-13 Satnam Singh while describing the occurrence 13 Satnam Singh while describing the occurrence with iron pipe ibuted the role vice versa that it was Jang Bahadur, who had held the attributed the role vice versa that it was Jang Bahadur, who had held the ibuted the role vice versa that it was Jang Bahadur, who had held the ibuted the role vice versa that it was Jang Bahadur, who had held the deceased from his legs and it was appellant (Man Bahadur), who had inflicted deceased from his legs and it was appellant (Man Bahadur), who had inflicted deceased from his legs and it was appellant (Man Bahadur), who had inflicted deceased from his legs and it was appellant (Man Bahadur), who had inflicted