Crl. Revision No. 2326 of 2005 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2326 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 21, 2011 Manjit Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.R.P.Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. P.S.Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab *** GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioner-accused, Manjit Singh, was convicted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 18.4.2002, for the offences under Section 324 and 326 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 324 IPC and for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 326 IPC. He preferred an appeal against that judgment, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 1.12.2005. Now, the present revision has been filed by him against that Crl. Revision No. 2326 of 2005 -2- conviction and sentence. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.11.1997, at about 6.45 p.m., Sanjiv Kumar, complainant-injured, PW-1, was coming back to his house. When he reached near the PCO of Goldy, Manjit Singh, accused, accompanied by two other unknown persons, came from the opposite side and at that time he was armed with a kirpan (Sword). The unknown person of dark complexion was holding a rod in his hand whereas the second unknown person was armed with a hockey stick. The accused raised alarm exhorting his co-accused to catch hold of him as he was to be eliminated that day for having come to see the plot for his brother-in-law for purchasing the same. The person of black complexion took him in his grip and the accused gave a blow with his kirpan on his head and in order to save himself, he raised his left hand and in the process received injuries on the fingers of that hand. He was able to get himself released from the grip of that person and the second blow was given by the accused on the back side of his head, as a result of which he fell down. That person gave a blow with his iron rod on his back and he was also given kick blows. In the meanwhile, Manish Kumar came to that place and witnessed this occurrence and he raised an alarm, which attracted Yash Pal, PW-2, to the spot and other persons also started collecting at that place. All the assailants, on seeing those persons, snatched the gold chain from his neck and managed to escape from that place. He was removed to Civil Hospital and was admitted at that place. He was medically examined by Dr. Ramesh Kumar, PW-6, who found six injuries on his person, which were detailed in the Medico Legal Report, Ex. PW6/A. Copy of the ML Report was sent to the police station and on the receipt thereof, Jasbir Singh, ASI, PW-5, came to the hospital and made an application, Ex. P.1, to enquire about the fitness of the complainant/injured to make his statement. He was declared unfit by the doctor, vide his Crl. Revision No. 2326 of 2005 -3- endorsement, Ex. P.2. On the next day, the ASI again went to the hospital and made a similar application to enquire about the fitness of the complainant to make his statement, but he was declared unfit to make his statement. It was on 27.11.1997, that the complainant was declared fit to make his statement and thereafter, the ASI recorded his statement, Ex. PA. After making his endorsement, Ex. PA/1, upon the same, sent that to the police station, on the basis of which FIR, Ex. PA/2, was recorded against the accused under Sections 324/34 and 356 IPC. The ASI went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared the rough site plan, Ex. PC, with correct marginal notes. The injuries on the person of the complainant were subjected to Radiological Examination, which was conducted by Dr. Jasmit Walia, PW- 3, who found fracture of proximal phalanx of left little finger. After the receipt of X-ray Report, Ex. PB, injury No. 2 was declared as grievous. On the receipt of the opinion of the doctor regarding the nature of that injury, offence under Section 326 IPC was added against the accused and report to that effect was recorded in the DDR dated 29.11.1997. The accused was arrested on 22.8.1998. During the investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After the completion thereof, challan was put in before JMIC, Jalandhar, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt, prosecution examined Sanjiv Kumar, complainant, PW-1, Yash Pal, PW-2, Dr. Jasmit Walia, PW-3, Rajinder Nath ASI, PW-4, Jasbir Singh ASI, PW-5 and Dr. Romesh Kumar, PW-6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined by the trial court and his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to Crl. Revision No. 2326 of 2005 -4- enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his innocence and false implication at the instance of his brother-in-law, Kulwant Singh, who connived with the police for pressurizing him to sell his plot –cum-factory premises to Yash Pal, Attorney of his sister, Hardaman Kaur wife of Kulwant Singh. He was called upon to enter on his defence but he did not produce any evidence in his defence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that the FIR, in this case, was registered after 48 hours of the occurrence itself and that delay is fatal to the prosecution. In fact, the complainant had a motive to falsely implicate the accused as Yash Pal wanted to purchase his plot by putting pressure upon him. It was dark at the time of occurrence and, as such, it was not possible for the complainant to identify the accused. The prosecution is relying on the solitary statement of the complainant, though according to it, the occurrence was also witnessed by Manish Kumar. For non- examination of Manish Kumar, an adverse inference is to be drawn and the conviction of the accused could not have been recorded on the solitary statement of the complainant. In the last, he submitted that against the sentence of imprisonment of one year, imposed upon him under Section 326 IPC, the accused has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment for a period of 1½ month and keeping in view the protracted trial, it is in the fitness of things that the sentence of imprisonment, so imposed upon him, be reduced to the period already undergone and the complainant can be suitable compensated by imposing the costs etc. It is a fact that there is delay of about 48 hours in lodging the FIR. The question arises whether any explanation has been offered by the prosecution for that delay and, if so, whether the same is sufficient. Evidence Crl. Revision No. 2326 of 2005 -5- has been produced to the effect that the complainant, after the occurrence, was removed to the hospital and was admitted at that place. On the receipt of the copy of the Medico Legal Report, Jasbir Singh, ASI, PW-5, immediately went to the hospital and made an application, but the complainant was declared unfit to make his statement. He was declared fit only on 25.11.1997 and it was only thereafter, that his statement was recorded, which is made the basis of the FIR. It was on account of the unfitness of the complainant to make his statement, that this delay occurred. Sufficient explanation has been offered by the prosecution for that delay and the same cannot be said to be fatal to it. However, in view of that delay, the evidence produced by the prosecution is required to be scrutinized with much care and caution. The prosecution relied upon the solitary statement of Sanjiv Kumar, complainant, PW-1, so far as the occurrence is concerned. However, he deposed about each and every fact, which constitute the prosecution version and which have been detailed above. According to him, this occurrence was witnessed by Manish Kumar, who was also cited as witness, but was never examined in the Court. Adverse inference, on account of non-examination of this witness, was to be drawn, in case he was to depose about some other facts in addition to the facts which had already been deposed by the complainant. There is no rule of law that before placing reliance on the statement of solitary witness, the same must be corroborated by some other evidence. It is settled that corroboration is not a rule of law but one of caution. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rachamreddi Chenna Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1999(1) Apex Court Judgments 278 that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary, provided that the witness passes the test of reliability. It was again held by the Apex Court in Chander Shekher Bind Crl. Revision No. 2326 of 2005 -6- v. State of Bihar 2001(4) RCR (Criminal) 446 that under the Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person whereas evidence given by half dozen witnesses, which is not trustworthy, would not be enough to sustain the conviction. In order to test the veracity of the complainant, and to impeach his credit, the accused cross examined him at length but in that process he has not been able to elicit any such fact on the basis of which it may be held that he is not trustworthy witness or that he has not made correct statement in the court or that he has an animus to depose against the accused. The trial court and the appellate court did not commit any illegality while recording the conviction of the accused on the basis of his statement. In his statement before the police, Ex. PA, the complainant also disclosed the motive on the part of the accused to cause injuries to him and that fact was reiterated by him while making his statement in the Court. According to the counsel for the accused, that fact can also be said to be a motive on the part of the complainant to falsely implicated the accused. It is well settled that when direct evidence is produced by the prosecution, any such motive, pales into insignificance. The motive is always a double edged weapon and cannot be the sole criteria for adjudging the guilt or innocence of the accused. After a minute perusal of the statement of the complainant, this Court has come to the conclusion that there was no motive on his part to falsely implicate the accused. This occurrence took place in the month of November at 6.45 p.m. Usually, it becomes dark in the said part of the State at that time during that month. However, nothing was extracted during the cross examination of any of the prosecution witnesses, on the basis of which, it may be said that it was pitch dark at the time of occurrence and it was impossible for the complainant to identify the accused. The way he has been cross examined by the accused, it Crl. Revision No. 2326 of 2005 -7- cannot be said that this argument, that the complainant was not in a position to identify him, is available. He was examined at length regarding his acquaintance with this accused and the facts deposed by him during his cross examination, make it very much clear that the accused was already known to him and he duly identified him at the time of the occurrence. From this discussion, I conclude that the findings recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court, while convicting the accused, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Therefore, the conviction of the accused in upheld. The case was registered against the accused in the year 1998 and he is standing his trial since then. The trial court took three years and four months to conclude the trial. The appeal was decided by the appellate court in a period of three years and eight months. The present revision is pending since the year 2005. The speedy trial is the fundamental right of every accused. Keeping in view the fact that the accused is facing the agony of the protracted trial for all these years, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him under Section 326 IPC is reduced from one year to six months. With this modification in the sentence of imprisonment, the revision is disposed of. This order be certified to the trial court for taking necessary action. Records of the trial court be returned forthwith. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE April 21, 2011 PARAMJIT Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes