Paramjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present : Mr.R.K.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab ----- A.N.JINDAL, J (Oral) : These two petitions are directed against the judgment dated 13.7.2005 passed by Appellate Court, Hoshiarpur, dismissing the appeals of the petitioners-accused (herein referred to as the accused), against the judgment dated 14.7.1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, convicting and sentencing the accused as under; Name of convict Offence u/Section Sentence awarded Prem Pal 326 IPC RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- CRR No.1328 of 2005 Channa Ram, Paramjit Singh & Amarjit Singh @ Amba -2- 326/149 IPC RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each. Channa Ram 324 IPC 324/149 IPC Prem Pal Paramjit Singh & Amarjit Singh @ RI for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- RI for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- Paramjit Singh & 325 IPC Amarjit Singh @ amba, RI for a period of 6 months and to pay a find of Rs.750/- Prem Pal Channa Ram 325/149 IPC 148 IPC Prem Pal, Paramjit Singh Channa Ram & Amarjit Singh @ amba RI for a period of 6 months and to pay a find of Rs.750/- RI for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- In nutshell, the prosecution story is that on 17.8.1993 at about 7.30 P.M. Sucha Ram, complainant, alongwith Kewal Singh was coming from the bus stand and they were crossing the mettled road in front of the house of Joginder Ram Fauji, in the meantime, two accused namely, Prem Pal and Paramjit Singh came there and exhorted the complainant and Kewal Singh to teach a lesson for giving false evidence. They also caught hold of the complainant, pushed him on the road and dragged him inside their gate. Channa Ram inflicted a datar blow on the head near the left ear of the complainant. Prem Pal inflicted a kulhari blow on the left arm of the complainant, resultantly, he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Paramjit Singh and Amba inflicted four stick blows on his person. Gurmail Singh continued hurling abuses and threatening the CRR No.1328 of 2005 -3- complainant that they were to teach him a lesson for casting his vote in favour of the sarpanch and he also inflicted kick blows to him. On raising hue and cry, Joginder Singh Sarpanch and Darshan Singh arrived at the spot and came at his rescue, whereupon the accused fled away. On the aforesaid statement Ex.PA made by the complainant before ASI Gopal Singh on 18.8.1993 at about 5.40 P.M., FIR Ex.PC was registered at police station Sadar, Hoshiarpur at 6.05 P.M. on the same day. The case was investigated. The injured was medico legally examined by Dr.Inderjit Singh Ahuja, EMO, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Site plan was prepared and on completion of investigation, the accused Prem Pal, Channa Ram, Paramjit Singh, Amarjit Singh @ amba and Gurmail Singh were challaned. They were charge sheeted under Sections 326, 325, 324, 148, 149 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Sucha Ram complainant (PW-1), Dr. Inderjit Singh Ahuja, EMO, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur (PW-2), Darshan Singh (PW-3), Kewal Singh an eye witness to the occurrence (PW-4), Dr. Mrs. Surineder Ganger, Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur (PW-5), ASI Gopal Singh, Investigating officer (PW-6), C.Manjit Singh (PW- 7) a formal witness. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them were denied by all the accused and they pleaded their false implication in the case. They further stated that they were implicated at the instigation of CRR No.1328 of 2005 -4- sarpanch Joginder Singh due to party faction in the village. The trial resulted into conviction of Prem Pal, Paramjit Singh, Amarjit Singh @ amba and Channa Ram. However, accused Gurmail Singh was given benefit of doubt and was acquitted. Feeling aggrieved, the accused filed two separate appeals, which were dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide a consolidated judgment dated 13.7.2005. While assailing the findings returned by the two Courts below, the counsel for the petitioners have again stressed that there is an unexplained delay of 23 hours in lodging the FIR. The occurrence had taken place on 17.8.1993 at 7.30 P.M. whereas FIR was lodged on the next day i.e. on 18.8.1993 at 6.05 P.M. The medical evidence does not fit in with the ocular version. The motive behind the occurrence is missing. There are serious discrepencies in the statements of the witnesses and the case is based on the testimonies of the interested witnesses. Having pondered over the findings of trial Court as well as Appellate Court, it transpires that both the Courts below have returned the findings of fact regarding the guilt of the accused. The judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is elaborate one and touching all the factual and legal situations of the case. The prosecution in order to substantiate the allegations examined Sucha Ram (PW-1) and Kewal Singh (PW-4). Both are quite consistent in their statements with regard to the time, place and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. Nothing material could be extracted from their statements which could help the case of the CRR No.1328 of 2005 -5- accused. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of the witnesses rather those are the proof of their genuineness. The complainant Sucha Ram suffered ten injuries and he being a stamped witness, would be the last person to implicate the false persons in place of the real culprits. Out of the ten injuries suffered by him, injury No.2, 4, 6, 7 & 8 are on the vital parts of the body. Dr. Inderpal Singh on receipt of the X-ray report declared injury No.4 and 10 as grievous in nature. These two injuries are referred as under :- Injury No.4 :- Incised wound 2.5 X .2 cms over the back of the left forearm x in its middle 1/3rd. Wound was bone deep. X-ray was advised. Injury No.10 :- Tenderness in lumbar region of back. X-ray advised. The X-ray report Ex.P 11 has been proved by Dr. Mrs.Surinder Ganger (PW-5). She has stated that on radiological examination, fracture of shaft of left ulna in the lower half and fracture of 12th rib at its posterior and opposite L.1 vertevera have been detected. She also proved the X-ray films Ex.P1 to P 10 on the record. As regards the argument with regard to absence of motive, the contention lacks merit. On going through the statement of Sucha Ram (PW-1) it transpires that Prem Pal and Paramjit Singh had exhorted that complainant be tought a lesson for giving false evidence. Sucha Ram has further strengthened the motive by testifying that he had casted vote in favour of the sarpanch Joginder Singh. No rebuttal to this evidence has been brought to the surface. In any case, in the light of the eye witness account supported by medical evidence, the question of motive pales into significance. It is CRR No.1328 of 2005 -6- also well settled by now that even a slight motive or the occurrence could be the result of no motive. As a matter of fact, motive has hidden in the heart which is very difficult to explore. The occurrence cannot be said to be non existent without motive. As regards the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular version, while looking into the evidence of the doctor as well as the statements of the witnesses, it stands established that Injury No.4 (which was declared grievous) upon the left arm of the complainant has been attributed to accused Prem Pal. Injury No.5 over the head near the left ear of the complainant has been attributed to accused Channa Ram caused by a sharp edged weapon. Injuries No.2, 3 and 6 to 9 have been attributed to the accused Paramjit Singh and Amarjit Singh @ Amba. Injuries No.1 and 10 had not been clearly attributed to anyone yet we cannot lose sight of the fact that where four accused caused injuries to the complainant with their respective weapons, then it was very difficult for the witnesses to make an individual account of the same. As such their testimonies cannot be ignored merely for the reason that they could not specify the person who caused injury Nos.1 & 10. As regards the delay in FIR, the occurrence had taken place on 17.8.1993 at 7.30 P.M. at village Phaglana. PW 2 Dr. Inderjit Singh Ahuja states that the injured was admitted in the hospital at Hoshiarpur at 11.30 P.M. PW 6 ASI Gopal Singh went to the hospital on 8.8.1993 and moved the application Ex.PB and after receiving the fitness of the injured Sucha Singh to make the statement, he recorded his statement Ex.PA. Since the other CRR No.1328 of 2005 -7- witnesses remained busy in attending their sole bread winner therefore, a little delay in recording the FIR cannot be treated as fatal to throw the prosecution case as a whole. However, the delay, if any, stands duly explained. As regards the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, it has also been reiterated time and again that the discrepancies as pointed out by the counsel are immaterial and hardly effect the prosecution version. As regards the presence of the witness Kewal Singh is concerned, besides Sucha Ram, Kewal Singh is the eye witness in the case. He has specifically stated that Sucha Ram was in the street when he was dragged into the house and after taking Sucha Ram into the house, the accused caused him injuries. No suggesion was given to PW 4 Kewal Singh if he was inimical to them. Though Kewal Singh has stated that it was only Prem Pal who had dragged him whereas Sucha Ram (PW-1) has stated that Prem Pal and Paramjit Singh had dragged him into the house yet this minor discrepancy may have occurred due to the long pause in their examination. But the fact remains that Sucha Ram was caused injuries inside the house. As regards injuries Sucha Ram has given complete account of the accused and the injuries caused by them. In the light of these circumstances, the discrepancies do not matter much. No other argument has been advanced. In the wake of the aforesaid discussions, these petitions being devoid of any merit, are dismissed. 12th Nov., 2010 (A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE