In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. 258-SB of 1998 Date of decision: May 08, 2008 Mohinder Singh and others ... Appellants versus State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sandeep Mann, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.3.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the accused-appellants (herein referred to as 'the accused') were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.2500/- each. Succinctly put, the facts as unfolded by the prosecution which culminated into the trial and conviction of the accused are that the complainant Bhagwan Singh (herein referred to as 'the complainant') along with his family members was living outside the village abadi in a house at Dhussi Bandh in the jurisdiction of village Vehran. On 24.9.1996, at about 8.00 a.m. he along with his brother Lachhman Singh (deceased) and Basara Singh (father) had gone to the house of his maternal uncle Luna Singh at village Vehran. After some time,his brother Lachhman Singh left for going to village Baghela. At about 9.30 a.m., they came to know that Lachhman Crl. Appeal No. 258-SB of 1998 -2- *** Singh was apprehended by Mohinder Singh etc. (accused) and they were beating him near the Flour Mill of Sucha Singh on account of he having teased and dragged Jasbir Kaur daughter of Mohinder Singh with an intention to commit rape. On receipt of the aforesaid information all the three persons namely Bhagwan Singh, his father Basara Singh and maternal uncle Luna Singh reached the spot and found accused Mohinder Singh, Karnail Singh, Tarlok Singh and Satnam Singh beating Lachhman Singh. They had blackened his face and put a garland of shoes around his neck. The accused Mohinder Singh and Satnam Singh were beating him with sota while Karnail Singh and Tarlok Singh were giving shoe and fist blows. Despite the request made by the complainant and his companions, the accused did not allow him to go. Due to the injuries, Lachhman Singh was turned half dead, therefore, they raised hue and cry. On intervention of some people, the accused released him after taking assurance in writing not to take any action for the injuries on the person of Lachhman Singh. After Lachhman Singh was released, he was taken to the hospital. On that day, as prevented by the accused, the matter was not reported to the police. However, the complainant made a statement Ex.PD on the next day on the basis of which FIR Ex.PD/2 was registered. The investigation commenced. The Investigating Officer prepared injury statement Ex.PW6/A, filled the inquest report Ex.PC as Lachhman Singh had later on died. He arranged for photographs of the dead body; sent his body to the hospital for autopsy; prepared rough site plan Ex.PW6/B, took the shoe garland Ex.P1 into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/C. On completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. Crl. Appeal No. 258-SB of 1998 -3- *** On commitment, a charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against all the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Dr. Varinder Pal Jagat (PW1), who conducted autopsy on the body of Lachhman Singh on 25.9.1996 at about 9.40 a.m. and found the following injuries on his body :- “1. Abrasion 1 cm x .5 cm on the left side of face 2.5 cms away from outer angle of left eye. Clotted blood was present. 2. Multiple abrasions 1 cm x .25 cm to .75 cm x 0.5 cm on the left side of the forehead near the anterior hair line. Clotted blood was present. 3. Red contusion 8 cms x 7 cms over the right side of face involving the right eye which was blackened. There was defused swelling 11 cms x 9 cms around the contusion more towards forehead and temporal region. On dissection under lying soft tissue was lacerated underlying bone was fractured. Mananges were torn. Brain matter was lacerated in this area. Cranial cavity contained blood. 4. Oblique reddish contusion 8 cms x 2 cms on the outer and upper aspect of right shoulder. 5. Oblique reddish contusion 10 cms x 2.5 cms over right upper arm 5 cms below the right shoulder. Crl. Appeal No. 258-SB of 1998 -4- *** 6. Reddish contusion 9 cms x 2.5 cms on outer and front of right upper arm, lying obliquely 11 cms below shoulder. 7. Reddish contusion 7 cms x 5 cms over back of right forearm just below elbow lying obliquely. 8. Reddish contusion 7 cms x 3.5 cms on the back of right forearm in its middle. 9. Reddish contusion 5.5 cms x 4.5 cms on the back of right hand with diffused swelling 6.5 cms x 5.5. cms around the contusion. 10. Reddish contusion 3 cms x 2 cms over the tip of left shoulder. 11. Reddish contusion 5 cms x 1 cm over front of left shoulder 3 cms below its tip. 12. Reddish contusion 7 cms x 6.5 cms on the back and lateral side of the left elbow. 13. Reddish contusion 14 cms x 6 cms on the inner and back of left upper arm in its middle. There was abrasion 1 cm x .75 cm on lower part of the contusion. Clotted blood was present over the abrasion. 14. Reddish contusion 17 cms x 11 cms on the inner and front aspect of left forearm starting 2 cms elbow joint. 15. Reddish contusion 5.5 cms x 2.5 cms on back of left forearm in its middle lying obliquely. 16. Reddish contusion 5 cms x 4.5 cms on right side of neck in its middle. Crl. Appeal No. 258-SB of 1998 -5- *** 17. Reddish contusion 3.5 cms x 2 cms on back of neck 4 cms above its route. 18. Reddish contusion 5 cms x 1.5 cms on front of left side of chest lying almost horizontally in its upper arm 5 cms below clarival 3.5 cms from axilla. 19. Multiple abrasion in an area of 11 cms x 5 cms on front and upper side of right side of chest in its middle. Clotted blood was present. 20. Multiple reddish contusions lying in its various directions of various sizes varying from 17 cms to 3 cms in length 2.5 cms x 1.5 cms both over the whole back of chest and abdomen. 21. Multiple reddish contusions over both buttocks side of both hips back of thigh, poplitial fossa, back of both legs, ranging from 16 cms to 5 cms in length to 2.5 cms to 1.5 cms in breadth. 22. Reddish contusion 14 cms x 11 cms on front of right thigh in its middle and 13 cms x 1 cm on front of thigh in its middle. 23. Abrasions .5 cm in diameter on front of right leg .2 cms above ankle joint. Clotted blood was present. 24. Abrasion .5 cm x 1 cm on dorsum of left leg big toe over its M.P. Joint. Clotted blood was present.” He further opined that the death was due to neurogenic and haemorrhage shock due to injury No.3. The injuries individually and Crl. Appeal No. 258-SB of 1998 -6- *** collectively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time which elapsed between the injuries and death was within 6 hours and between death and postmortem was within 24 hours. He further opined that possibility of contusions by kick blows and abrasions by sota blows and dragging on the floor could not be ruled out. PW-2 Bhagwan Singh is the complainant, PW-3Luna Singh is the maternal uncle of the deceased. Both are the witnesses to the occurrence. PW-4 Tarlochan Singh, A.M.H.C. Police Station Mehatpur and PW-7 C. Jaswant Singh both are the formal witnesses. PW-5 Gurpal Singh Patwari prepared the scale site plan Ex.PW5/A, PW-6 SI Dalbir Singh is the Investigating Officer and PW-8 HC Sardul Singh is an attesting witness to the disclosure statements of the accused Mohinder Singh and Satnam Singh and recovery of bamboo sticks at their instance. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in this case. In defence, the accused examined Swaran Singh (DW1) and Ranjit (DW2). The trial ended in conviction. Hence this appeal. Arguments heard. Record perused. Multi-fold contentions including that there is delay in lodging the FIR which stands unexplained has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Credibility of he witnesses has been challenged and it was also urged that investigation is a tainted one. It has been further urged that Crl. Appeal No. 258-SB of 1998 -7- *** the injuries were caused to Lachhman Singh by the people who had collected there before arrival of the accused at the scene. The learned counsel had also taken me through the statement of Swaran Singh (DW-1) for strengthening the defence version. To the contrary, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has supported the impugned judgment by taking me through the entire evidence and has urged that the evidence collected by the prosecution is quite trustworthy, ruling out any falsehood. He has further urged that no plausible evidence has been led in order to establish that the deceased tried to molest the girl, therefore, the people beat him to death. Having heard the rival contentions, I am not persuaded by the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. There is no inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The delay, if any, stands explained satisfactorily. The occurrence in this case took place on 24.9.1996 at about 9.30 a.m. statement of Bhagwan Singh Ex.PD was recorded on the same day at 3.50 p.m. and the FIR was registered at 4.25 p.m at Police Station, Nakodar. Being more concerned with the life of the deceased Lachhman Singh, the complainant, his son and brother in law shifted him to the hospital, where he died. The accused prevented them from going to the police for some time and later on they sneaked away. Ultimately, the complainant when started for police station, the police met him at 3.00 p.m. at Mehatpur i.e. at a distance of 5-6 kms from the place of occurrence, where his statement was recorded. The FIR reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 8.30 p.m. There is a consistent eye witness account. Bhagwan Singh (PW2) and Luna Singh (PW3) had the courage to make clean breast of the Crl. Appeal No. 258-SB of 1998 -8- *** facts. Nothing incriminating could be derived from the statement so as to dub the prosecution version as manufactured one. Since the accused had blackened the face of the deceased and were trying to take him around, therefore, much time was wasted at the spot and they could not shift him to the hospital. As such, the delay in lodging the FIR in the present case stands duly explained and has no significant role to play in order to strengthen the defence plea. The other argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the accused are not the perpetrators of the crime, as a matter of fact the story is otherwise. The deceased had teased Jasbir Kaur and dragged her with an intention to commit rape, therefore, the people were attracted to the hue and cry raised by her and they in retaliation beat the deceased. But, this plea is shorn of any truth as having come to the surface at a belated stage. The accused did not bring this fact to the notice of the authorities immediately after the case was registered against them. During the course of evidence, no such question was asked and no suggestion was given to Bhagwan Singh (PW2) and Luna Singh (PW3) disclosing the said plea. Only suggestion given to Bhagwan Singh (PW2) is that Satnam Singh was not present at the spot. Even no question was asked to Luna Singh (PW3) that the accused had teased Jasbir Kaur and he was beaten by the people and not by the accused. In order to establish the said plea regarding beating of the deceased by the public, the accused have proved the writing Ex.DA and has examined Swaran Singh (DW1). Nevertheless Swaran Singh (DW-1) was examined to prove the writing Ex.DA but at the same time, the prosecution has explained that this writing Crl. Appeal No. 258-SB of 1998 -9- *** was got signed from the complainant under pressure and he was fumbled and confused at that time due to the injuries caused to his son Lachhman Singh. They have admitted that they neither lodged any complaint regarding the act of the deceased to the police nor he informed the police that it was not they, but the general public who was at fault. To the contrary, both the witnesses have consistently disclosed the time, place and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. They have also disclosed as to who were responsible for causing injuries to Lachhman Singh. Had any person from the public caused injuries to the deceased, then they would have been the last persons to withhold their names. Again Swaran Singh (DW1) is not a truthful witness. He has stated that he with the help of Manu rescued Jasbir Kaur from the clutches of Lachhman Singh and has further stated that he brought Lachhman Singh first on the metalled road where other boys were also collected. Lachhman Singh was taken to Flour Mill of Sucha Singh which is 2- ½ -3 killas from the main road. Many persons who had collected there had beaten Lachhman Singh. According to him, message was sent to the parents of the girl, whereupon father and two brothers of Lachhman Singh came there. Mohinder Singh, Karnal Singh and Tarlok Singh had also come there. Swaran Singh (DW1) appears to be a chance witness. His house is at a distance of 2 kms from the place of occurrence. He has made contradictory statement. At one place, he had stated that 5-6 persons had collected and then they had taken Lachhman Singh to the Flour Mill which runs contrary to his earlier version. He has stated that he called the accused, whereas claim of the accused is that they received information through Sarpanch of the village Baghela. The said Crl. Appeal No. 258-SB of 1998 -10- *** Sarpanch of the village has not been examined. Silence on the part of Swaran Singh (DW1) to appear before the higher authorities remonstrates against the conduct of the complainant and is sufficient to draw infer.ence against the accused. Consequently, the writing Ex.DA is also rendered manufactured one, whereas the story as proved by the eye witnesses and supported by the medical evidence inspires confidence. No other argument has been advanced and no law has been cited to assail the impugned judgment. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. Consequently, finding no merits in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. May 08, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge To be referred to reporter: Yes/No.