Crl. Revision No. 322 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 322 of 2004 Date of decision: March 22, 2011 Pritpal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Santokh Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. GURDEV SINGH, J. (Oral) The petitioner/complainant,Pritpal Singh, lodged FIR No. 164 dated 10.12.1999 against the respondents/accused, Santokh Singh, Davinder Singh and Gurinder Singh @ Kala, in Police Station Payal, under Sections 323, 325, 342/34 IPC. The accused were tried for those offences by the JMIC, Ludhiana, and were convicted, vide judgment dated 3.10.2002. They were sentenced as under:- Crl. Revision No. 322 of 2004 2 1 Santokh Singh (i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 323 IPC and to pay fine of `200/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven days; (ii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 325 IPC and to pay fine of `500/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days; and (iii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 342 IPC and to pay fine of ` 200/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven days. 2 Devinder Singh (i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 323 IPC and to pay fine of `200/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven days; (ii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 325 IPC and to pay fine of `500/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days; and (iii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 342 IPC and to pay fine of ` 200/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven days. 3 Gurinder Singh (i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 323 IPC and to pay fine of `200/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven days; (ii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 325 IPC and to pay fine of `500/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days; and (iii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 342 IPC and to pay fine of ` 200/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven days. They preferred an appeal, which was decided by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 11.8.2003. In the appeal, their conviction and sentence was set aside and they were acquitted. Crl. Revision No. 322 of 2004 3 Against that judgment of acquittal, the complainant has filed the present revision. As per the version given by the complainant (PW-1) in his statement Ex. PA before the police, the accused were nursing a grudge against him, as he had been stopping them from preparing dung cakes in the passage. On 9.12.1999, he accompanied by his son Gurbhagat Singh (PW- 2) had gone to take a round of his fields. When they reached near their well, he asked Santokh Singh-accused as to why he was preparing dung cakes in the passage and that accused replied that they would continue to do like that. Thereafter, they entered into an oral quarrel. Santokh Singh raised a lalkara by saying that he should not go unharmed that day. Thereafter, Santokh went inside his cattle shed. That accused, alongwith Devinder Singh and Gurinder Singh @ Kala, emerged from that cattle shed while armed with lathies. On seeing the accused, he himself and his son started running towards abadi of the village. The accused chased and encircled them. Santokh Singh gave a blow with his stick on his head, whereas Devinder Singh gave a blow with his stick on his right leg above ankle, thereby fracturing the same and as a result thereof, he fell down. Then Gurinder Singh gave a blow with his stick on his right hand. His son went running towards the village. The accused dragged him inside their cattle shed and tied him with the gate thereof. After sometime his son and wife Paramjit Kaur came there and seeing them all the accused escaped from the spot with their respective weapons. He was removed by his son and his wife to Sidhu Hospital, Doraha, for treatment and was admitted at that place. In that hospital, he was examined by Dr. R.S. Sidhu (PW-4), who found three injuries on his person; which were detailed in the medico legal Crl. Revision No. 322 of 2004 4 report Ex. PW4/A. Dr. R.S. Sidhu sent his ruqa to the police station and on receipt thereof, Balbir Singh, ASI (PW-3), accompanied by the police officials, reached that place. After obtaining written opinion of the doctor about the fitness of the complainant, the ASI recorded his above said statement. After making his endorsement Ex. PA/1 on the the same, he sent that to the police station and on the basis thereof, formal FIR was recorded against the accused under the aforesaid sections. The ASI went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared rough site plan Ex. PD with correct marginal notes. One rope was recovered from the spot, which was taken into possession, vide memo Ex. PB. In the course of the investigation, the accused were arrested. On 17.12.1999, lathies were recovered from them, in pursuance of their disclosure statements. After completion of the investigation, challan was put in before the JMIC, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 325/34, 323 and 342/IPC. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Pritpal Singh (PW-1), Gurbhagat Singh (PW-2), Balbir Singh, ASI (PW-3) and Dr. R.S. Sidhu (PW-4). After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined by the trial court and their statements were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances and pleaded their false implication. They stated that no such injuries were ever caused by them to the complainant, who was caused those injuries by some unknown person, and on account of party faction, they have been falsely implicated. Crl. Revision No. 322 of 2004 5 They were called upon to enter on their defence. They examined Mangal Singh (DW-1) in their defence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the conviction of the accused could not have been set aside by the appellate court on the grounds mentioned in the judgment. The delay would not have been made the basis for acquittal of the accused, as the first endeavour of the son and the wife of the complainant was to get treatment for the injuries from the hospital. For the treatment of those injuries, he was being removed from one hospital to the other. It also weighed with the appellate court that no blood stained earth was found at the spot and the blood stained clothes of the complainant were not taken into possession by the police. That would have been only corroborative piece of evidence. It was wrongly observed by the appellate court in the judgment that in the statement Ex. DA/1 made by the complainant before Dr. R.S. Sidhu (PW-4), he stated that some unknown person had caused injuries to him. In fact, in that statement he had stated that some person caused injuries to him. The statement made by the complainant (PW-1) before the trial court was fully corroborated by his son Gurbhagat Singh (PW-2) and that ocular evidence was further corroborated by the medical evidence. From that evidence, the guilt of the accused stood proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, the finding of acquittal, so recorded by the appellate court, is liable to be set aside. He prayed that the accused be convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 323, 325 and 342/34 IPC On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused, while supporting the finding so recorded by the appellate Crl. Revision No. 322 of 2004 6 court, that the acquittal of the accused cannot be set aside in the revision. There is delay of about 18 hours in reporting the matter to the police and that delay was utilized by the complainant party to implicate the accused falsely. It cannot be said from the statement of the complainant or his son that the prime motive was to obtain treatment for the injuries and rather efforts were being made by the complainant to get medico legal report from one government hospital or the other, but was not obliged by any doctor. The explanation so furnished cannot be said to be sufficient. The scrutiny of the statement of the complainant, in the light of that delay, makes it very much clear that the injuries were received by the complainant at the hands of some unknown person and on account of old enmity, the accused were falsely implicated in this case. There is no grounds for setting aside the judgment of acquittal so recorded by the appellate court. It is now well settled that first endeavour of the relatives of the injured is to get treatment for him instead of rushing to the police for lodging report. In the present case, the evidence produced by the prosecution is to be judged in the light of the fact that there is double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The first presumption arises under the criminal jurisprudence, as applicable to the Indian law and the second presumption is on account of their acquittal recorded by the appellate court. A perusal of the statement of the complainant (PW-1), makes it very much clear that he had not been approaching the government hospital one after the other for treatment of his injuries but was doing so for getting himself examined medico legally. He stated during his cross- examination that he had gone to civil hospital, Khanna, for medico legal examination but was not examined by the doctor there and then he went to Crl. Revision No. 322 of 2004 7 government hospital, Payal but was not examined there as well. He also stated that the police post was hardly at the distance of 1 km from his house and the police station was at the distance of 10 yards from the hospital, Payal, but at that time he had not gone to lodge the report to the police. What had prevented him from going to the police post or police station, when, according to him, he stayed in the government hospital, Payal, for 30 minutes and had also stayed at government hospital, Khanna, for 30 minutes. It has come on the record that he made the statement Ex. DA/1 before Dr. R.S. Sidhu (PW-4). It was admitted by the complainant that such statement was made by him before the doctor and he had put his thumb mark on that statement. In that statement, he stated that the injuries were caused to him by some persons. He never disclosed the name of the accused at that time, which was the first available opportunity with him to disclose their names. The conclusion can easily be drawn that he did not know the assailants at that time. It is the case of the prosecution itself that there was old enmity between the parties on account of preparation of dung cakes by the accused in the passage. In those circumstances, false implication of the accused by the complainant after taking advantage of this delay cannot be ruled out. The statement of the complainant that he was removed from one government hospital to the other for his medico legal examination stood contradicted by his son Gurbhagat Singh (PW-2), who stated in clear words, that he himself and his mother had taken the complainant directly to Sidhu Hospital at Doraha. There are contradictions in the statements of the complainant, his son and wife. According to the complainant, his son and wife were armed with sticks when they came to the spot to rescue him, but according to his son, they were empty handed. According to the Crl. Revision No. 322 of 2004 8 complainant, three injuries were caused to him in this occurrence and two injuries were caused to him in the house, where he stayed. To the contrary, in his statement made before the police, he stated that he himself and his son had started running when they saw the accused coming out of their cattle shed and that thereafter they were encircled by the accused and were caused injuries. In that eventuality, there was every possibility of his son also getting some blows at the hands of the accused, but he had gone totally unhurt. According to the complainant, this occurrence lasted for 4-5 minutes, whereas according to his son, it lasted only for 30/60 seconds. His son had gone to the extent by deposing that before start of the occurrence itself he went running to the house. According to him, he stayed in the house for 2-3 hours before removing the complainant to the hospital. No explanation has come forth as to what they were doing in the house for those 2-3 hours. In this case the accused have their own story to tell. They examined Mangal Singh (DW-1), who came out with the version that he had found the complainant in an injured condition in front of his house and that some unknown person caused injuries to him. Thereafter, he took the complainant inside the house and his family after arranging the car took him to the hospital. Nothing could be elicited during his cross-examination, on the basis of which it may be held that he was a witness not worthy of reliance or that he has been introduced into picture falsely. The statement of the defence witness stood corroborated from the statement made by the complainant himself before the doctor that the injuries were caused to him by some persons. No illegality was committed by the appellate court, while recording the finding of acquittal. Crl. Revision No. 322 of 2004 9 There is no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed. Records of the trial court be returned forthwith. March 22, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE