Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Judgment

1. The present revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 15.4.2005 (hereinafter as ‘impugned judgment’), delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, (hereinafter

as ‘trial Court’), whereby the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 7 have been acquitted from the charges framed against them in FIR No.60 dated CRR No.1665 of 2005 -2-

30.4.2001 under Sections 307/336/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Sadar Moga.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, as recorded in para 2 of the impugned judgment, reads thus:- “2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 30.4.2001, Jarnail Singh Sarpanch son of Piara Singh, resident of village Duneke came to police station Saddar Moga. Such Jarnail Singh suffered a statement giving some information. As per his statement he was sitting Sarpanch of his village. On that day he came to police station, Saddar Moga in connection with some affair of his village. Time was 8.15 pm. He became free from his such occupation and when he came out of gate of police station for going to his village, he saw that outside the gate of police station a white Maruti car bearing No.PB-29-0243 was standing and Sukhdev Singh Ex.Sarpanch, his brother Gurmail Singh, Jagjit Singh son of Gurmail Singh, Iqbal Singh son of Sukhdev Singh residents of village Mangewala and Harmail Singh Ex. Sarpanch resident of village Maur Nau Abad were standing near such car. He also stood there with them and started talking. He came to know that their opposite party had fired in the air from their respective weapons who were Major Singh son of Jit CRR No.1665 of 2005 -3- Singh, Hardev Singh son of Major Singh, Baldev Singh son of Hukam Singh, Gurnam Singh son of Tota Singh residents of Mangewala etc. They were standing there to give information of occurrence. In the meantime persons of their opposite party came on a car bearing no : PB- 10AC-8378 and white zypsy no.: DL-4CA-0681. From such vehicles Nirbhai Singh son of Lal Singh armed with DBBL 12 bore gun, Nachhattar Singh son of Gurdev Singh armed with DBBL 12 bore gun, Gurnam Singh son of Tota Singh empty handed, Major Singh son of Jeet Singh armed with 12 bore gun, Hardev Singh son of Major Singh armed with dang, Baldev Singh son of Hukam Singh armed with dang, Tarsem Singh son of Darshan Singh armed with sota residents of Mangewala came out. As soon as they came Major Singh and Baldev Singh raised lalkara by saying that they should be caught and they would not be allowed to go scot-free. Nirbhai Singh and Major Singh started firing shots with their respective weapons on Sukhdev Singh and others with intention to kill them. They saved their lives by hiding themselves behind the car. Nirbhai Singh and others had also directly fired gun shots on car. He (complainant) raised loud hue and cry and he came towards police station. All those persons went away with CRR No.1665 of 2005 -4- their respective weapons on their vehicles. Because of murder there was enmity between them on account of factionalism. Such Jarnail Singh sought action by suffering such statement. Statement of Jarnail Singh was directly recorded in FIR register which became part of FIR itself. Accordingly FIR was lodged. SI/SHO along with other police officials went to the spot of occurrence. Special reports were sent. From place of occurrence white Maruti Car No. PB-29-0243 was taken into possession. Rough site plan of place of recovery was prepared. Fire arms were recovered from respective accused. Enquiries were conducted by SP(H) and SP(D). Statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded. Vehicles and their respective documents were also taken into possession. Empty cartridges were also lifted from place of occurrence and were taken into possession. Guns and empty cartridges were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh and its report was received. After completion of investigation, Nachhattar Singh was kept in column No.2 whereas, other six accused were sent for trial by presenting challan. However, before Illaqa Magistrate Tarsem Singh accused was declared proclaimed offender.” CRR No.1665 of 2005 -5-

4. After completion of the investigation, the accused were charged for the commission of offences under Section 148/307/336/149 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, namely, Jarnail Singh, complainant and eye witness of the occurrence, as PW1; Harmail Singh, another eye- witness, as PW2; MHC Gurmail Singh as PW3; Barinderpal Singh, Arms Clerk, Office of Deputy Commissioner, Moga, as PW4; Major Singh, Junior Assistant, Office of District Transport Officer, Moga, as PW5; Raj Kumar, Junior Assistant, Office of District Transport Officer, Moga, as PW6; C. Des Raj as PW7; ASI Gurcharan Singh, who had partly investigated the case, as PW8; SI Sikandar Singh, who also partly investigated the case, as PW9; and C. Kewal Singh as PW10. PWs Jagjit Singh, Iqbal Singh, Sukhdev Singh, SI Balkar Singh, C. Harjinder Singh and HC Harpal Singh were given up as unnecessary and PWs Gurmail Singh and Harjit Singh were given up being won over by the accused.

6. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while putting all the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence against them, which they denied and pleaded false implication. No witness was examined by the accused in their defence. CRR No.1665 of 2005 -6-

7. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court acquitted all the six accused from the charges framed against them. Hence the present revision petition by the complainant.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no injury is required to be proved for making a case under Section 307 IPC. The complainant has a right to agitate this point as independent witness. He has further argued that this Court has the revisional jurisdiction to re- appreciate the evidence on record.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 7 has submitted that Sukhdev Singh was allegedly the target in the instant case but he has not lodged any FIR. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. In the incident, the vehicle, i.e., the car of Sukhdev Singh was found damaged but he has also not lodged any complainant. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi. The present revision has been filed only with a view to harass the respondents.

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

11. From the evidence on record, it is made out that the case of the prosecution is highly doubtful. As per the prosecution version, the distance between accused and the alleged car was such that a gun-shot fired from that distance, losses its assaulting potentiality. It is further made out that if the shot is fired from the distance as stated by the prosecution, it could not be able to cause any casuality or fatal injury. CRR No.1665 of 2005 -7- The present case appears to be a result of the enmity and factionalism between the parties.

12. As per the case of the prosecution, Jarnail Singh met Sukhdev Singh, Ex. Sarpanch of Village Mangewala, his brother Gurmail Singh, Harmail Singh Ex. Sarpanch of Maur Nau Abad, Jit Singh and Iqbal Singh, who were standing near a Maruti car and were talking to each other. However, the statement of none of these five persons was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the date of alleged occurrence, i.e., 30.4.2001. The occurrence is stated to have taken place in front of Police Station, Sadar Moga. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the non-recording of the statements of Sukhdev Singh, Gurmail Singh, Harmail Singh, Jit Singh and Iqbal Singh, casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version.

13. The learned trial Court has examined and discussed each and every aspect of the case in great detail and has reached to the conclusion that no case against the accused-respondents is made out. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that the learned trial Court has not appreciated any fact on record or that the observations of the learned trial Court suffer from any perversity. He has also failed to establish that the view taken by the learned trial Court is not the possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the view CRR No.1665 of 2005 -8- taken by the learned trial Court is the possible view and does not suffer from any perversity.

14. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is upheld.

24.09.2010 atulsethi (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to reporter : Yes/No