Criminal Appeal No. 339-DBA of 2000 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 339-DBA of 2000 Date of decision : 16.5.2008 State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Meharban ...Respondent **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND **** Present: Mr. Pradumn Yadav, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. S. D. ANAND, J. Inspite of notice, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent/accused. However, in view of the fact that leave to appeal in this case had been granted by a Coordinate Bench as early as on 27.7.2000, we opted to examine the record. State of Haryana has filed the present appeal to impugn the validity of judgment dated 13.10.1998 vide which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jind (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Judge”) acquitted the respondent-accused. On 12.12.1997, first informant PW-2 Raghbir Singh left village Khapar in the company of PW-3 Jogi Ram and deceased Ruldu. The party was bound for Narwana. Initially, they travelled upto Uchana in a jeep. They alighted from the jeep near railway crossing Uchana and proceeded to Bus Stand on foot. While they were on way to the Bus Stand on foot, a loading three wheeler tempo bearing registration No. HYS 8374 came from Criminal Appeal No. 339-DBA of 2000 -2- **** the rear side. On the request of the trio, the driver of the tempo i.e. Respondent/accused agreed to fetch them upto the Bus Stand. When they got down at the Bus Stand, a dispute arose between respondent/accused and the deceased over the amount of fare payable. In the course thereof, respondent/accused kicked the private parts of deceased who fell down upon the ground. The respondent/accused sped away in his tempo. Ruldu was taken to C.H.C., Uchana where the Medical Officer declared him brought dead. In view of the fact that the Medical Officer refused to retain the dead body at the hospital, Raghbir Singh and Jogi Ram brought it back to the place of occurrence where a crowd had collected by the time a police gypsy reached over there and the offence was notified to the police by PW-2 Raghbir Singh, vide statement Ex. PE. The ocular segment of the prosecution plea was represented by PW-2 Raghbir Singh first informant and PW-3 Jogi Ram. Apart from the formal witnesses, (PW-4 Head Constable Ram Kumar, PW-5 Constable Laxman Singh, PW-6 Constable Sunder Singh, PW-7 Constable Mahabir Singh, PW-8 Satpal, PW-9 Constable Jai Pal), PW-10 Inspector Sukhraj was examined as Investigating Officer of the case. Besides them, PW-1 Dr. R.K. Singla was examined at the trial. Dr. R.K. Singla had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Ruldu. He found the left scrotum slightly swollen. He sent viscera of stomach, liver, spleen, kidney and also small and large intestine to the Chemical Examiner for examination. On perusal of the report Ex. PB, furnished by the Chemical Examiner, Dr. Singla opined that death had occurred due to Neurogenic shock which was antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Criminal Appeal No. 339-DBA of 2000 -3- **** The report of the Chemical Examiner was to the effect that viscera were positive for ethyl alcohol estimated as 57.5 mg%. Learned Trial Court recorded a finding of exoneration on the premise that there was unexplained delay in notification of the offence to the police inasmuch as the impugned occurrence had taken place on 12.12.1997 at 4.00 P.M., but as per the endorsement made by the learned Illaqa Magistrate, special report was delivered to him on 13.12.1997 at 7.45 P.M. The endorsement by the learned Illaqa Magistrate falsified the testimony of PW-6 Constable Sunder Singh, who averred that he delivered the special report to the learned Illaqa Magistrate on 12.12.1997 at 7.30 P.M. While evaluating the evidentiary value inter-se, learned Trial Judge also noticed that even the delivery of special report through constable Sunder Singh was doubtful. In that context, it was noticed that PW-10 Inspector Sukhraj Singh had categorically indicated that special report had been sent through Constable Surinder Singh (and not Sunder Singh who testified as PW-6). A perusal of the endorsement made by the learned Illaqa Magistrate on the special report would indicate that special report Ex. PJ had been received by the officer through constable Ravinder Kumar No. 157. All this hotchpotch is indicative of the fact that there is something certainly amiss in the manner in which the special report came to be delivered to the learned Illaqa Magistrate. Learned Trial Judge noticed that the conduct of PW-2 Raghbir Singh and PW-3 Jogi Ram in having refrained from lodging the report with the police by visiting the police station raises doubt about their bonafides in the context. It further noticed that after the dead body of Ruldu had been brought to the spot from the hospital on account of refusal by the Medical Officer to retain it at the hospital, there is no understandable Criminal Appeal No. 339-DBA of 2000 -4- **** reason why both of them would have stayed near the dead body and waited for the police to come over there. In the natural course of things, it was one of them could have stayed over there to guard the dead body and other could have gone over to the Police Station to lodge an FIR. The further refrain on the part of both the afore-mentioned PWs in not intimating the death of Ruldu to his family members was also unnatural. It was also noticed that the concerned Medical Officer had not been examined at the trial to corroborate the version of PW-2 Raghbir Singh and PW-3 Jogi Ram. If the Medical Officer, who was duty bound to conduct a post mortem examination in view of the unnatural death of Ruldu, had not cooperated, those PWs could have approached the Senior Medical Officer available over there which they did not do in the present case. It was also noticed that PW-8 Satpal photographer testified that he had taken the photographs of the spot in the morning at about 11.00 A.M. on 12.12.1997. Though the photographer tried to beat a hasty retreat to state immediately thereafter that he was not sure about the timing at which the photographs had been taken before 11.00 A.M. the fact remains that since the occurrence had taken place on 12.12.2007 at 4.00 P.M., the spot could not have been photographered at about 11.00 A,M. as impugned incident had not taken place at that time. For the reason that both the PWs claimed to have met respondent/accused, a tempo driver, for the first time on that day and they along with deceased had occupied a seat in the rear portion of the tempo, the identity of the respondent as a culprit has not been established, particularly when no test identification parade had been held. Further, though both the witnesses PW-2 Raghbir Singh and PW-3 Jogi Ram categorically averred that deceased Ruldu had never Criminal Appeal No. 339-DBA of 2000 -5- **** consumed liquor, the viscera report indicated the contrary. In light thereof, the possibility of deceased having sustained injuries by a fall under the influence of liquor cannot be ruled out and that is what had been precisely averred by the respondent. We find that above quoted line of reasoning indicated by learned Trial Judge to discard the prosecution presentation is valid. After having been through the file, we find that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Judge are relatable to the material obtained on the file and there is nothing perverse in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge. The appeal is dismissed. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE May 16, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Pka JUDGE