IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 169-DBA of 1997 Date of Decision : 07.01.2008 State of Haryana. …Appellant Versus Manjit Singh and others. … Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellant. Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the respondents. S.D. Anand, J. The respondents-accused (Manjit Singh @ Jit Singh son of Iqbal Singh, Tek Singh son of Iqbal Singh, Iqbal Singh son of Jagat Singh, Gurpreet Singh @ Sonu son of Manjit Singh and Savtaj Singh @ Sartaj Singh son of Manjit Singh) were prosecuted in case F.I.R. No. 117 dated 15.04.1995 under Sections 302/285/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Tek Singh was tried for an offence under Section 302 IPC; while Manjit Singh, Iqbal Singh and Savtaj Singh @ Sartaj Singh were tried for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Apart therefrom, Manjit Singh had also been charge-sheeted and tried for an offence under Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code (Gurpreet Singh, a co-accused, was tried independently by the Juvenile Court). The prosecution plea was that Sukha Singh, who intervened in an altercation between the complainant party and the accused, was done to death by Tek Singh who hit his head with a brick, he picked up from near Crl. Appeal No. 169-DBA of 1997 the spot. After he had been fell down, Tek Singh sat over his chest; while Gurpreet Singh and Sartaj Singh give other brick blows to him. The grievance of the respondents-accused was that Sukha Singh was trying to adopt a larger than life clout by endeavouring mediation in the aforementioned dispute which (intervention) irked the respondents-accused. The prosecution plea essentially rested upon the testimony of PW8-Dharam Singh and PW9-Paramjit Kaur (wife of Sukha Singh deceased), both of whom claimed to have witnessed the impugned occurrence. Dharam Singh lives in the house adjacent to the site of the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, found contradictions as between the testimony of PW9-Paramjit Kaur and PW8-Dharam Singh. The Trial Judge also noticed that it was unnatural to believe the prosecution version that Manjit Singh respondent-accused was carrying two empties (Ex.P3 and P4) at the time of his arrest on 19.04.1995. The availability of Dharam Singh at the spot was doubted by the Trial Court by observing that though he claimed to have received a thrustwise lathi blow in his abdomen at the hands of Iqbal Singh, this fact did not find mention in First Information Report (PH/1) which had been lodged by none-else or other than Dharam Singh himself. Further, he had not got himself medically examined at the local hospital or at the PGI, to which places he claimed to have accompanied Sukha, on a reference from L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra. It was further noticed that the Medical Officer at L.N.J.P. Hospital did not issue any referring slip to PGI, Chandigarh. In a feeble attempt to assail the finding of exoneration of the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, argues that the discrepancies/contradictions noticed by the learned Trial Judge in the inter- 2 Crl. Appeal No. 169-DBA of 1997 se testimony of PW8-Dharam Singh and PW9-Paramjit Kaur are, in fact, indicative of the fact that they had made a natural presentation and had not tried to present a photographic version. The learned State counsel is not on a firmer footing when he so argues. The learned Trial Judge noticed adequate reasons to hold that the discrepancies in the inter-se testimony of PW8-Dharam Singh and PW9- Paramjit Kaur were on points having very material bearing on the outcome of the prosecution plea. It may be noticed in the context that if Dharam Singh had actually been present and hurt at the hands of Iqbal Singh- accused, there is no earthly reason why he would have made a mention of that fact in the First Information Report, which he himself had lodged with the police. Furthermore, there is no reason whatsoever to justify the refrain on the part of Dharam Singh in getting himself medically examined at L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra or PGI, Chandigarh. It is his own version that he had accompanied Sukha Singh to both the hospital aforementioned. The presentation by the prosecution that two empties (Ex.P3 and P4) were being carried by the respondent-accused Manjit Singh on his person when he was arrested on 19.04.1995 would appear to be very unnatural. Why, after all, would that respondent have carried empties on his person is beyond comprehension. If Manjit Singh had actually left the spot (in the course of the impugned occurrence) to fetch his gun from his residence in the hit of the moment, he could not be expected to rest content with firing two shots in the air. Upshot of the discussion is that the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge deserves affirmation and we hold accordingly. The appeal filed by the State shall stand rejected. 3 Crl. Appeal No. 169-DBA of 1997 For the very reasons recorded in the course of the foregoing paras of the judgment, Criminal Revision No. 716 of 1996 filed by Paramjit Kaur against the judgment of acquittal shall also stand dismissed. ( S.D. ANAND ) JUDGE January 07, 2008 ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) vkd JUDGE 4