Criminal Appeal No. 6-DBA of 1997 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 6-DBA of 1997 Date of decision : 6.5.2008 State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Paramjit Singh and another ...Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. D.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. S. D. ANAND, J. The learned Trial Court exonerated the respondents/accused on a charge of having murdered Joginder Singh on 11.8.1992 in furtherance of the common intention. Inspite of notice, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents/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 2.1.1997, we opted to examine the record. We find that the present appeal by the State of Punjab deserves out right rejection. The reasons therefor are as under:- The learned Trial Judge recorded a finding of fact that though one Partap Singh of village Chhokra had been cited a prosecution witness to prove the motive on the part of the respondents/accused to commit the crime (with which they were charged) and also conspiracy, he could not be Criminal Appeal No. 6-DBA of 1997 -2- *** examined at the trial inspite of the grant of more than sufficient opportunity and the learned Trial Court ultimately declined to grant any further adjournment for production of that PW. Learned Trial Judge further noticed that, as per the FSL report Ex. PN, the cartridge recovered from the spot was not found to have been fired from the gun recovered from the respondents/accused. Learned Trial Court further found that recovery of cartridge afore-mentioned from the spot had not been noticed in the inquest report. Learned Trial Court further noticed that the Investigating Officer had acted very casually in getting the rough site plan prepared from a Head Constable. It also noticed the statement of Investigating Officer that although a scaled site plan has been got prepared from a Draftsman as well, the correctness thereof was not checked by him and that he also did not tally it with the rough site plan got prepared by him from a Head Constable. Further, after noticing that the medical evidence was to the effect that deceased had been hit by single weapon, it also took cognizance of the fact that inspite of interrogation, no weapon could be recovered at the instance of respondent/accused Harmail Singh and the prosecution had also not identified the weapon attributed to him. The prosecution plea was also found to be doubtful in view of the fact that there were three injuries having been caused found on the dead body of the deceased and the possibility of all the three injuries with different weapons was remote. On that account, it was found that “the medical evidence is therefore also not in complete harmony with the ocular account and other circumstances.” In the conclusion, the learned Trial Judge recorded the Criminal Appeal No. 6-DBA of 1997 -3- *** following finding:- “The sum and substance of the above discussion is that Maghar Singh PW 3 and Raghbir Singh PW 4 are close relations of the deceased and their presence on the spot is extremely doubtful. The medical evidence does not support the ocular account and investigation of the case is tainted. Above all the defence version that the deceased was killed in some other manner prior to the stated time and the entire story was concocted and the documents were prepared by the investigating officer out of sheet imagination, is highly probable. The cartridge allegedly recovered from the spot was not fired from the rifle which is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of Paramjit Singh accused and the involvement of Harmail Singh accused is extremely doubtful. The result is that the charge under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and Section 27 Arms Act against the accused are not proved beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.” We find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding of exoneration and also the above quoted reasoning recorded in support thereof. There is no perversity on the part of the learned Trial Judge in appreciating the evidence. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are clear in our mind that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. We have examined the impugned finding on the Criminal Appeal No. 6-DBA of 1997 -4- *** touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and we so order accordingly. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE May 06, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Pka JUDGE