Crl. A.No. 941-DBA of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. A.No. 941-DBA of 2002 Date of decision: 04.08.2011 State of Punjab ..... appellant. Versus Gurdev Singh and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sidhu, Addl.A.G, Punjab for the appellant. Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate for the respondents. -- VIJENDER SINGH MALIK J. The State of Punjab is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.07.2002 passed in a case against respondents Gurdev Singh and others by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Faridkot, registered by way of FIR No. 47 dated 14.4.1992 of Police Station Bagha Purana, for an offence punishable under sections 148, 307 read with section 149 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. The case set up against the respondents by Police Station, Bagha Purana is as under:- Crl. A.No. 941-DBA of 2002 2 On 13.4.1992 at about 7.00 PM Bachittar Singh, complainant was sitting on a cot in the courtyard of his house. He and his brothers Bikker Singh and Jugraj Singh were with him at that time. Jasbir Kaur, wife of the complainant was also there. In the meanwhile, Gurdev Singh armed with a DBBL 12 bore gun alongwith Teja Singh, Malkit Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, and Bhajan Singh, armed with gandasas, came in front of the house of the complainant and started abusing them. Gurdev Singh raised lalkara exhorting his companions to teach a lesson to the complainant and others for supporting the other party, which was litigating with him. Bachittar Singh, complainant , his brother and his wife went atop the roof of their house. Gurdev Singh fired a shot towards them, hitting Bachittar Singh on his left arm, left thigh and above the left knee. He fired another shot hitting Jasbir Kaur on her right wrist. Gurdev Singh fired three shots in all towards the complainant and others to kill them. The complainant and others raised alarm and the accused ran away. The complainant and others did not go out of the house out of fear of the accused. On the next day, Ghammanda Singh took the injured to Civil Hospital, Moga where they were admitted. The doctor had informed the police. ASI Surinder Singh came to Civil Hospital, Moga in response to the said information. He recorded the statements of Bachhittar Singh and his wife Jasbir Kaur. The case was registered on the statement of Bachittar Singh. During investigation, Surinder Singh, ASI collected the empties from the spot and giving them the shape of parcel sealed the same with Crl. A.No. 941-DBA of 2002 3 seal bearing impression 'SS'. The clothes of the injured were taken into possession after converting them into a sealed parcel. On completion of investigation, challan was prepared and presented in the court. Charge was framed against the respondents for an offence punishable under sections 148, 307 read with section 34 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses in all at the trial. The accused were examined thereafter in terms of section 313 Cr.P.C, in which they pleaded innocence. Gurdev Singh claimed therein that he alongwith Natha Singh and Jagjit Singh was going to the house of Natha Singh. On that day, he was having his licensed gun with him. According to him, Bachittar Singh, Pamma Singh, Resham Singh, Angrej Singh and Harjit Singh were present in the Deorhi of Bachittar Singh and they came out on seeing them. Pamma Singh is said to have been armed with pistol. Bachittar Singh and Anrez Singh are said to have snatched his licensed gun. Pamma Singh is said to have fired from his pistol, hitting him(Gurdev Singh) on his right thigh. Angrez Singh is said to have hit him by hurling brick bats upon him. The others are said to have abused him. It is further stated by him that Natha Singh and Jagjit Singh snatched his gun from Bachittar Singh and Jagjit Singh fired two shots from the gun in the air. Bikker Singh and Jagraj Singh are said to have been falsely introduced as eye witnesses. In defence, Dr. Mohinder Pal is examined as DW-1 and Crl. A.No. 941-DBA of 2002 4 Natha Singh as DW-2. After hearing learned additional public prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and going through the evidence on record, learned trial Court found the prosecution case to have been doubtful and extending benefit of doubt to the accused, acquitted them of the charge framed against them. Feeling dis-satisfied, the instant appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab. We have heard Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, learned Addl. A.G.,Punjab for the appellant-State and Mr. G.S. Kaura, learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the entire evidence produced on record with their assistance. Learned Addl. A.G., for the appellant has submitted that learned trial court has wrongly acquitted the respondents. He has prayed for reversal of the judgment of acquittal and ordering conviction of the respondents and awarding suitable punishment to them. It is a very unique case where the respondents are stated to have been standing in the street outside the house of Bachittar Singh while Bachittar Singh, his wife Jasbir Kaur and his brother were there on the roof of the house. Between the house of Bachittar Singh and the street, there is open courtyard of the house of Bachittar Singh. The distance between the respondents and the injured at the time of occurrence has come in evidence as 9-10 karams. This distance comes to about 50 feet. Crl. A.No. 941-DBA of 2002 5 Dr. Vinod Garg, PW-2 had medicolegally examined the injured, complainant and his wife. He had found blackening of the skin around the wound qua all the injuries, which indicated that the injuries had been caused by a close range shot. Blackening of margins of injuries cannot be believed to have been there in case the gun shot is fired from a distance of about 50 feet. Besides the fact that all the injuries caused by the shot allegedly fired by the respondents are on non-vital parts of the body of Bachittar Singh and Jasbir Kaur, the fatal blow to the case is given by Gursewak Singh,draftsman, PW-11, who has not only stated about the distance between the place where from the accused are said to have fired gun shots and the place where the complainant and others were hit by them but has also stated that the injured on the roof of their house could not be visible to any person standing in the street. If Bachittar Singh and his wife Jasbir Kaur were not even visible to the persons standing in the street, i.e. the place wherefrom the respondents are alleged to have fired the gun shots, there was no question of the gun shots fired by them to have hit Bachittar Singh and his wife Jasbir Kaur. All these circumstances are quite compelling in nature and leave no room for doubt about the conclusion reached by learned trial court regarding failure of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence with which they were charged. In view of the above, we do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the Crl. A.No. 941-DBA of 2002 6 judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court. The appeal is consequently dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA) (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE JUDGE 04.08.2011 dinesh