Criminal Appeal No. 367-DBA of 1997 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 367-DBA of 1997 Date of decision : 16.5.2008 State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Kulwant Singh and others ...Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND **** Present: Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Iqbal Singh Bajwa, Advocate for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. The respondents-accused were prosecuted by the police of Police Station, Makhu in case ( FIR No. 112 dated 20.12.1993, under Sections 326, 323, 34 IPC) on an allegation that they belaboured Jasmail Singh on 19.12.1993 at about 7.00 P.M. At that point of time, the respondents/accused were armed with various weapons. They were nourishing a grievance against injured as the latter was in the habit of encroaching upon boundary of their fields inspite of their having forbidden him from doing it. The injured could not be examined at the trial as he died in the meantime. Gulzar Singh, who had taken him to the hospital, was also not examined at the trial. Criminal Appeal No. 367-DBA of 1997 -2- *** It was noticed by the learned Trial Court that Angrej Singh was not proved to have seen the impugned occurrence. Infact his name did not figure in the FIR as an eye witness. There was inordinate and unexplained delay in notifying the offence to the police inasmuch as the impugned occurrence had taken place on 19.12.1993 at 7.00 P.M.; whereas FIR in the context was recorded on the following day at 1.30 P.M. inspite of the fact that Police Station, Makhu is located near the hospital at that place. The motive part was also held to be unreliable. The following observations bear out these facts noticed by the learned Trial Judge :- “12. If the motive part is seen, PW3 admits in his cross-examination that taunting was made by the complainant to the accused and when the taunting was made, he was not present there. Thus, this motive part is also appeared to be a hear-say evidence which has been given by Tirath Singh PW in the court and according to him the said fact was told by the complainant to PW Tirath Singh. 13. Thus, in view of the fact that complainant Jasmail Singh has not been examined by the prosecution and no explanation has been coming forth regarding his non-examination on the record and that the instant FIR was recorded about 18.1/2 hours after the occurrence identification of the injured has not been made during the recording of the statement of Dr. R.S. Sandhu PW1, who Criminal Appeal No. 367-DBA of 1997 -3- *** conducted the M.L.R on the person of the complainant that the eye-witness Tirath Singh PW3 and Angrej Singh PW4 are the real brothers of the injured Jasmail Singh; that the name of Angrej Singh PW4 has not been mentioned by the complainant in the FIR as an eye witness and his presence has been held to be doubtful at the time of occurrence, that previous enmity between the parties has been proved vide Ex.D2, the fact remains that the prosecution version is highly doubtful”. We are in agreement with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge. We see no cause to interfere. The appeal shall stand dismissed. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE May 16, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Pka JUDGE