Case: State of Punjab Vs. Pargat Singh & Others

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. These appeals have been filed by the State of Punjab challenging the impugned judgment of the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 4th February, 2009 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 479 and 522 of 2007 acquitting the appellants. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 27th February, 2007 convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 302/34, 307/34 and 120-B was set aside by the High Court. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal granted by the High Court, the State has come up in these appeals. 3. The prosecution case, as emerged from the record, is as follows:- Ajmer Singh @ Kaka Singh s/o Veer Singh, complainant is the resident of Village Khai. On 16.9.2004 he, along with his son Gobind Singh and Swaran Singh s/o Gurdev Singh, after attending the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Moga along with Gurmail Singh Ex-Sarpanch S/o Amar Singh and Rajinder Singh s/o Sarja Singh Jatt, was returning to village Khai in jeep of Gurmail Singh. They had gone to the house of Gejo, Sister of Gurmail Singh, situated in Village Samadh Bhai. After taking tea, Gejo and her daughter-Manpreet Kaur accompanied them. When they reached near the bus stop of village Samadh Bhai, then two ladies took lift in their jeep. Jeep was at a distance of 1½ kilometer from village Raun, when at about 4.30 p.m. a truck came straight from Raunta side and truck driver had struck the truck straight against the jeep. Jeep was being driven by Gurmail Singh, and he took the jeep towards katcha side, but despite that truck driver had deliberately, with intention to murder, had struck the truck with full speed against the jeep. Jeep was badly damaged and fell into paddy crop fields, and all the passengers in the jeep sustained grievous injuries. After the accident, truck driver, along with the other three persons who were in the truck at the time of occurrence, after alighting from the truck had fled away towards village Samadh Bhai. Persons working in the adjoining fields came to the spot and all the injured were taken out of the jeep. Shaminder Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Yadwinder Singh, residents of Village Khai, had shifted the injured to Civil Hospital Niha Singh Wala. Rajinder Singh had succumbed to his injuries on the way to hospital. On receipt of medical ruqa from Civil Hospital Nihal Singh Wala, regarding admission of the injured in the Civil Hospital, ASI Rachhpal Singh of Police Station Nihal Singh Wala had gone there and after obtaining opinion of the doctor as to whether injured Ajmer Singh @ Kaka Singh is fit to make statement or not, statement of Ajmer Singh was recorded. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which a formal FIR was registered.4. All the accused were challaned and faced trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-respondents by order dated 27th February, 2007 and passed the sentence on 6th March, 2007 convicting accused Malkiat Singh, Pargat Singh, Chand Singh, Baljit Singh and Darshan Singh.5. Malkiat Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months (nine counts).6. Pargat Singh, Chand Singh and Baljit Singh were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 307/34 IPC (nine counts).7. Darshan Singh was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 120-B read with Section 307 IPC (nine counts).8. All the accused filed appeals before the High Court, which were allowed by the High Court. The High Court accepted the defence arguments that it was a case of an accident with truck-jeep on right side and occupants of truck fled away. The High Court also noticed that the accused were not armed with any weapon. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State, questioning the judgment of the High Court, contended that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and after marshalling the oral evidence, had recorded the finding that the crime was committed due to enmity. The truck was purchased by Darshan Singh only two weeks before the incident. 10. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The High Court had accepted the submission of defence counsel that it was due to previous enmity the accused were falsely implicated in the present case. PW1 had admitted that a number of cases were registered against the accused. The story that a conspiracy was hatched on to commit the crime, was correctly disbelieved by the High Court with the observation that had they been aware of the conspiracy, they could have sent intimation to the police or to Panchayat or any other respectable person of the village. The High Court had referred to the mechanical test report which mentioned that right side of the truck had struck against the right side of the jeep, which means that there was no head on collusion between two vehicles. The High Court relied upon the photograph showing the tyre marks which indicated that brakes were applied to avoid the accident. The High Court due to the aforesaid reasons, came to the conclusion that possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. The oral evidence which was led before the Court was marshalled and referred to by the High Court. The fact which also weighed with the High Court correctly is that none of the appellants were armed with any weapon and if the intention of the accused were to commit murder, in the normal course they must have carried arms. It shall be useful to reproduce the following finding and conclusion recorded by the High Court: "...Evidence shows that initially challan was presented against Pargat Singh and Jarnail Singh. After that report was submitted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. by challaning only Malkiat Singh to face trial under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 338 IPC. Complainant-Party had stated from village Moga on the day of occurrence and by passing through number of villages had gone to village Samadh Bhai. From Samadh Bhai, they along with Gejo (sister of Gurmail Singh) and Manpreet Kaur (daughter of Gejo) started for returning to village Khai. On the way two ladies had taken lift on their jeep. Jeep carrying seven persons was going towards village Khai. From a distance of approximately 1 ½ killa, a truck was noticed while coming from the front side. No mobile phone was recovered from the appellants-accused. No one was following the complainant-party. There is nothing on the file that intimation was given to the appellants-accused that at about 4.30 p.m. complainant-party would be at a distance of 1 ½ kilometers from village Raunta. Appellantsaccused were not armed. After the accident, the appellants-accused had fled away from the spot. If intention of the appellants-accused was to murder then they should be armed with different weapons. After striking truck against the jeep, appellants could easily cause injuries to the complainant-party. It is highly doubtful that the appellant-accused had the knowledge that at about 4.30 p.m. complainant-party would be at a distance of about 1 ½ kilometers from Raunta after covering a number of village photographs on the file shows that right side of the truck had struck against the right side of the jeep. Number of persons were working in the adjoining fields. After the accident, appellants-accused did not cause injury to any of the occupants of the jeep. Receipt of compensation from the Insurance Company by the Lrs of Rajinder Singh shows that it was a clear cut case of accident. But on account of previous enmity, the appellants-accused were implicated in a case under Section 302 IPC." 11. We fully endorse the view taken by the High Court in acquitting all the accused. Admittedly, both the vehicles colluded on the right side and from the tyre mark as apparent from the photographs, it is clear that brakes were applied to avoid the accident. False implication due to previous enmity was a plausible view and the High Court did not commit any error in acquitting the accused, accepting the defence version that it was a case of accident in which one person had died and others were injured. It is well settled that in a case of acquittal, if two views are possible, the Court shall not interfere in a judgment acquitting the accused.

Decision:
0[ds]The High Court due to the aforesaid reasons, came to the conclusion that possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. The oral evidence which was led before the Court was marshalled and referred to by the High Court. The fact which also weighed with the High Court correctly is that none of the appellants were armed with any weapon and if the intention of the accused were to commit murder, in the normal course they must have carried arms.We fully endorse the view taken by the High Court in acquitting all the accused. Admittedly, both the vehicles colluded on the right side and from the tyre mark as apparent from the photographs, it is clear that brakes were applied to avoid the accident. False implication due to previous enmity was a plausible view and the High Court did not commit any error in acquitting the accused, accepting the defence version that it was a case of accident in which one person had died and others were injured. It is well settled that in a case of acquittal, if two views are possible, the Court shall not interfere in a judgment acquitting the accused.