Criminal Appeal No.1014-SB of 1998 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.1014-SB of 1998 Date of decision : 16.9.2008 Manjit Singh and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. G.S.Gill, Advocate for the appellant Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent -State. S. D. ANAND, J. The appellants were convicted by the learned Trial Court for offences under Sections 307, 324, 324, read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The prosecution allegation was that the three appellants, all of whom were carrying a knife each, injured Gurvinder Singh and Sukhchain Singh on 9.5.1996. The occurrence was witnessed by PW-2 Jhujhar Singh who notified the offence to the police vide his statement Ex. P1, on the basis whereof formal FIR Ex. P1/1 was recorded by PW-4 Jarmal Singh. PW-7 Harinder Singh is the other eye witness. 3. The prosecution plea, at the trial, was supported by the testimony on oath by PW-2 Jhujhar Singh, PW-3 Gurvinder singh and PW-7 Harinder Singh. Criminal Appeal No.1014-SB of 1998 -2- **** 4. PW-1 Dr.Tarsem Monga, a private medical practitioner at Ambala Cantt. had medico legally examined Gurvinder Singh and Sukhchain Singh and found the following injuries on their person:- Gurvinder Singh: “1. 2 cm x 5 cm wound with sharp margins present 6 cm below the left knuckle over the chest. Underline muscles cut, fresh bleeding present and injury was kept under observation. 2. 1 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound, skin deep present in the left axilla 4 cm below the axillary pit over the posterior axillary line. Fresh bleeding was present and injury was declared simple. 3. 2 x 1 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound, skin deep present on the medial side of left upper arm 5 cm below the axilla. This injury was declared as simple.” Sukhchain Singh: 1. 2 cm x 1 cm wound over the left lumber region. Fresh bleeding was present and injury was kept under observation.” 5. It was thereafter that Dr. Monga sent a ruqqa (Ex. PC) to the SHO, Police Station Sadar, Ambala. On police plea Ex. PD presented on 10.5.1996, Dr. Monga opined (vide Ex. PD/1) that both the injured PWs namely i.e. Gurvinder Singh and Sukhchain Singh were not fit to make a statement. Again, on a police plea (Ex. PE), Criminal Appeal No.1014-SB of 1998 -3- **** presented on 12.5.1996 in the context, Dr. Monga opined (vide Ex. P1/1) that both the injured PWs were unfit to make a statement. On that very day, on a police plea (Ex. PF), Dr. Monga opined that injury no.1 on the person of Gurvinder Singh was dangerous to life. Further, on a police plea (Ex. PG), Dr. Monga opined on 14.5.1996 that both the injured PWs were unfit to make a statement. The injured PWs were declared fit to make a statement on 15.5.1996. That opinion (Ex. PH/1) was given by Dr, Monga on police plea (Ex. PH). 6. PW-8 ASI Dhiraj Kumar had investigated this case. 7. Sukhchain Singh was given up by the prosecution as unnecessary, vide statement dated 20.11.1996 of the Public Prosecutor. 8. PW-1 Harinder Singh, one out of two eye witnesses, did not support the prosecution plea at the trial. 9. The appellants denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded that it is they who were belaboured by Gurvinder Singh and Sukhchain Singh on 9.5.1996 at about 8.00 P.M. The following plea taken up by the appellant Manjit Singh, in the course of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; would indicate the defence of the appellants. “It is a false case which has been got registered against me and my co-accused by Jhujhar Singh in connivance with the police. The fact is that on 9.5.96 at about 8.00 p.m. I was called from my house by Gurvinder Singh and Criminal Appeal No.1014-SB of 1998 -4- **** his brother Sukhchain Singh and Sukhvinder Singh on the pretext of playing. They took me to a place outside behind the Gurdwara where Jhujhar Singh and Harinder Singh were already present. Just as I reached that place, Jhujhar Singh exhorted Gurvinder Singh, Sukhchain Singh and Sukhvinder Singh not let me to go alive and these persons then assaulted me. Gurvinder Singh and Sukhchain Singh inflicted knife blows on my person and Sukhvinder Singh gave fist and kick blows. On the alarm raised by me Gurvinder Singh, Karamjit Singh and Karnail Singh reached the spot and on seeing them all these persons ran away. I had grappled with Gurvinder Singh and Sukhchain Singh when they assaulted me and they also sustained somne injuries. I was taken home by my uncle Nasib Singh and later got admitted in Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt. I was examined by the Medical Officer there and an ASI of police had also recorded my statement on the following day. No action was taken by the police on our complaint which we submitted to the SP Ambala and SHO Sadar Ambala. I have filed a complaint against the assailants which is pending in Criminal Court.” The appellants did not adduce any evidence in defence. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, argues that the entire prosecution presentation deserves invalidation Criminal Appeal No.1014-SB of 1998 -5- **** as there is enough material on record to indicate that the Medical Officer and also investigating agency had ante-dated and ante- timed the proceedings in this case. It is argued that the entire aim in the context appears to have been to enable the complainant party to explain the delay in lodging of the FIR and also to wriggle out of the predicament of having to explain the refrain on the part of the Investigating Officer in proceeding to investigate the grievance of the appellant Manjit that he, Harjinder Singh and Karamjit Singh had, infact, been belaboured by Gurvinder Singh and Sukhchain Singh. 11. In that context, learned counsel invites attention of this Court to the following facts:- 12. Ex. PC is the ruqqa which PW-1 Dr. Monga had sent to the police. The timing (8.00 P.M.) and date (9.5.1996) of arrival of the injured had initially been recorded in the ruqqa. There is an overwriting on point of timing and also the date of the relevant endorsement. It appears that time of arrival had initially been recorded differently and it was made to read as 8.00 P.M. Likewise, the date of arrival had initially been recorded as 8.5.1996 and it was made to read as 9.5.1996. Further, the date of despatch of ruqqa was initially recorded as 10.6.1996 but was made to read as 10.5.1996. In a similar manner, the police plea Ex. PD purports to have been initially presented on 9.5.1996 but the date thereof was made to read as 10.5.1996. Likewise, police plea Ex. PE purports to have been presented on 11.5.1996 but was subsequently altered to read as 12.5.1996. This fact is further apparent from a perusal of Criminal Appeal No.1014-SB of 1998 -6- **** the endorsement Ex. PE/1 thereon by Dr. Monga. The date of endorsement had initially been recorded as 11.5.1996 but was made to read as 12.5.1996. In that very manner, the date of presentation of police plea Ex. PF, had been recorded as 11.5.1996 but was overwritten to read as 12.5.1996. Similarly, endorsement Ex. PF/1 recorded by Dr. Monga on Ex. PF appears to have been recorded on 11.5.1996 but was over-written to read as 12.5.1996. Interestingly enough, the Investigating Officer is not indicated to have been obtained any medical opinion about the fitness or otherwise of the injured PWs to make a statement on 11.5.1996 and 13.5.1996. The injured PWs were declared fit to make a statement on 15.5.2006. It was conceded by the Investigating Officer (ASI Dhiraj Kumar) that “when I was returning , Jarnail Singh Sarpanch met me near railway Phatak. He told me that Manjit Singh had also sustained injuries in the same very occurrence. Thereafter, I went to Police Post Regiment Bazar. I obtained the ruqa relating to Manjit Singh and went to Govt. Hospital, Ambala Cantt. I obtained the opinion of the Doctor in respect of Manjit Singh. I also recorded the statement of Manjit Singh.” 13. In order to wriggle out of the predicament of having to explain why he did not investigate the grievance of Manjit Singh, he testified that “I verified that statement but found that Manjit Singh had not sustained injuries in that occurrence.” He does not, at all, endeavour to explain the basis of his opinion. A such like opinion could be formed by him on the basis of testimony of the Medical Criminal Appeal No.1014-SB of 1998 -7- **** Officer who could have deposed to the probable duration of the injuries. It is not the plea of the Investigating Officer that he had obtained any pointed medical opinion in that behalf. It is, thus, apparent that the Investigating Officer had not, at all, been able to explain why he did not examine the grievance of Manjit Singh. 14. Insofar as the injured PWs are concerned, PW-1 Dr. Monga found three injuries on the person of Gurvinder Singh and one injury on the person of Sukhchain Singh. Injuries No. 2 and 3 on the person of Gurvinder Singh and the only injury on the person of Sukhchain Singh were found to be simple in nature. He opined the injury no. 1 on the person of Gurvinder Singh to be dangerous to life. He conceded, in the context, that “an X-ray of the above injury was done prior to the operation and that was normal. I could not form any conclusive opinion on the basis of that X-ray and that is why the injury was kept under observations.” He does not tell the court the basis of his having come to a conclusion that injury no.1 on the person of Gurvinder Singh was dangerous to life. He claimed to have operated upon Gurvinder Singh in order to “arrest the internal bleeding because of injury no.1” Thus, there is nothing on record to justify the opinion given by Dr. Monga that injury no.1 found on the person of Gurvinder Singh was dangerous to life. Further, Dr. Monga could not indicate the exact time when the injured PWs came to the hospital. He testified that the injured PWs had been brought to the hospital by Dr. Vinod, an unqualified Doctor who is a private medical practitioner in the area of village Shahpur. He also Criminal Appeal No.1014-SB of 1998 -8- **** testified that Dr. Vinod had not given any first aid to the injured PWs before they were brought to him. He conceded, as correct, a suggestion that Dr. Vinod had been referring cases to him in the past as well. 15. Harinder Singh PW did not support the prosecution plea, was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. There is nothing on record to indicate that he had turned hostile or that he had made an incorrect statement. It would be apparent from the above that the following witnesses having an important role in the prosecution plea were not examined at the trial. 1. Injured Sukhchain Singh 2. Dr. Vinod 16. Further, the prosecution has not been able to properly explain why the complaint of Manjit Singh was not investigated by the Investigating Officer who also did not indicate any reason in the relevant behalf. Dr. Monga has not been able to prove the basis of his declaring injury no.1 on the person of Gurvinder Singh to be dangerous to life. All concerned appear to have endeavoured to aid the investigating agency by ante-dating the dates and timings of various documents etc. The details thereof have already been noticed in the course of para No. 12 of this judgment. 17. There is nothing, at all, on record to indicate why the patient was not referred to a Government hospital at Ambala (Cantt. or city). This observation is particularly important in view of the fact Criminal Appeal No.1014-SB of 1998 -9- **** that Dr. Monga is not even indicated by his letter head to be a Orthopedic Surgeon. He is recorded to be a General Surgeon. 18. In the light of foregoing discussion, it is apparent that prosecution had concealed the genesis of the prosecution plea. The petitioners are entitled to benefits of doubt. The appeal shall stand allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charge. September 16, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE