Criminal Appeal No. 625-DBA of 2000 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 625-DBA of 2000 Date of decision : 13.5.2008 Satpal Singh .....Appellant Versus Deepinder Singh ...Respondent **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. D.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. Inspite of notice, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent/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 22.11.2000, we opted to examine the judgment of the Trial Court. The complainant-appellant has preferred the present plea to obtain invalidation of the judgment dated 15.11.1999 vide which the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of a charge under Section 307 IPC. We notice, that there is ample material on the file to prove that the parties to the prosecution are on litigating terms in respect of certain agricultural land and that respondent party is admittedly in possession of Criminal Appeal No. 625-DBA of 2000 -2- *** that land. It is apparent from the record that PW-2 Satpal Singh complainant had conceded in the course of cross-examination that a civil suit qua the above mentioned land had been decided against them by the then learned Senior Sub Judge, Faridkot, and that appeal preferred by the complainant against that judgment and decree had also been dismissed by the Court of the then learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot. He also conceded in the course of cross-examination that it is the respondent party which is in possession of that land. Thus, we find nothing perverse in the finding by the learned Trial Judge that possibility of false implication of the respondent/accused at the hands of the complainant cannot be ruled out. The prosecution, in the form of a private complaint, was launched by the petitioner on 14.12.1989. The impugned occurrence had taken place on 19.11.1989. Thus, there was delay of little less than a month in the filing of the complaint. The verbal averment made by the complainant that he approached the Police of Police Station Sadar, Mukatsar, a number of times and that he had also given applications over there in writing but that the police did not act on the written plea is not substantiated on the file for want of any documentation in that behalf. In normal course of things, a person circumstanced like the complainant would have raised a hue and cry at his having been belaboured by the respondent/complainant and also for the inaction on the part of the police. As against it, the verbal allegations in that behalf have not been corroborated by any document at all. Further, learned Trial Judge noticed that statement of PW-2 Satpal Singh to the effect that respondent-accused Dipinder Singh fired gun shots aimed at him (out of which one hit Amarjit Criminal Appeal No. 625-DBA of 2000 -3- *** Singh) is not supported by the medical segment, as per which the complainant had sustained one injury i.e. on the upper lip on the right side of face. The deficiency noticed by the learned Trial Judge in the statement of Medical Officer would be apparent from the following observations:- “17. The careful perusal of the statement of PW1 Dr. V.K. Gagneja, Medical officer goes to show that he has also contradicted the version of PW4 by stating in the cross that at the time of examining the injured by him no blood was coming from the mouth. If the injury no.1 has allegedly been caused with a gun shot, it was but natural that it had pierced through the lip and the gun and then it should have got exit creating a corresponding hole but PW1 medical officer has not been able to prove this fact on the file. The entire cross-examination of PW1 is note worthy. As per story of the prosecution and the statement of PW1 there was only one injury suffered by PW4. PW1 has admitted in the cross that entry wound near the gum which may or may not touched the gum. He has further stated that he does not remember whether the pellet entered the mouth (oral cavity) of the injured to reach its exist wound or not. There was no gun powder residue on the wound of entry or exit. He has further admitted that he never probed both the wounds and as such he cannot say whether it was through and through. From this admission of PW1 it is clearly proved on record that injury No.1 was not caused with a gun shot otherwise bullet/pellet must have entered the mouth through Criminal Appeal No. 625-DBA of 2000 -4- *** upper lip and must have caused harm to the gum and the teeth, which is not there as per admission of PW1. Besides, when the pellet or bullet enters any part of the body it creates a corresponding exist wound which PW1 has not been able to prove. Besides when an injury is caused with a gun shot it leaves powder residue and signs of burn around the entry hole. But statement of PW1 does not prove this fact because he has not intentionally probed the injuries to prove as to whether these were caused with the gun shot or not. The fact that injury No.1 was not caused with a gun shot becomes clear from further admission of PW1 Medical Officer in the cross- examination in which he has stated that the injury had not caused any harm to the teeth, gum or the bone of the mouth and he cannot say whether the injury was the result of bullet or pellet. This witness has further admitted in the cross that medico legal register produced by him is not official register and has further stated that he has been supplied the said private register by the office for want of availability for printed register. He has also admitted in the cross that register produced by him in the Court does not bear any signatures from the authority issuing the same nor it is page marked. 18. From the aforesaid admissions made by PW1, the medical officer, it is clearly proved on record that he has not properly probed the injury and has not given the correct result as to whether the injury was the result of a gun shot or was self Criminal Appeal No. 625-DBA of 2000 -5- *** suffered and has produced the register maintained by him privately bearing no certificate from the authority issuing the same. So, in my view the statement of PW1 is absolutely unbelievable having been given to favour of the complainant party without any basis whatsoever”. Apart therefrom, learned Trial Judge also noticed the fact indicating that Kanwarpal Singh PW-3 had not been proved to have been available on the spot at the time of impugned occurrence. The following observation was recorded by the learned Trial Judge in that behalf:- “PW2 has nowhere stated in his chief that PW3 Kanwarpal Singh was also present at the time of occurrence. PW3 Kanwarpal Singh has stated in the Chief that Deepinder Singh fired a shot from his 315 bore rifle towards the tractors and the same hit Amarjit Singh and thereafter they took shelter behind the ridges of the khal after leaving the tractors and jeep at the spot. From this statement of PW3 the version of the prosecution that Deepinder Singh fired several shots out of which one hit PW4 Amarjit Singh on the upper portion of his lip stands falsified PW3 has admitted in the cross that he had not got recorded in his statement made before the Illaqa Magistrate in the preliminary evidence that the accused started firing, but when he was confronted with his statement Ex.DB it was found recorded therein. This witness has further stated in the cross that he does not remember whether the had got recorded in his statement Ex.DB that the shot fired by Criminal Appeal No. 625-DBA of 2000 -6- *** Deepinder Singh hit Amarjit Singh, but when he was confronted with his statement Ex.DA wherein it was not found recorded. This witness has further stated in the cross that except Bhupinder Singh and Deepinder Singh the other persons were armed with dangs and gandasas, but when he was confronted with his statement Ex.DB, it was not found recorded therein. This witness has further admitted in the cross that Satpal Singh is his brother-in-law (Jija). He has also admitted in his cross that he had not disclosed the aforesaid occurrence to anybody in his village. So, from the aforesaid admissions of PW3, it is clearly proved on record that he was never present at the time of occurrence and that is why his name does not find mention in the statement of PW2 Satpal Singh complainant of the case. Rather, he has been introduced as a witness at a latter stage, to strengthen the case of the prosecution being the brother-in-law (sala) of the complainant and as such no reliance can be placed to the testimony of this witness”. 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 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 Criminal Appeal No. 625-DBA of 2000 -7- *** 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 13, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Pka JUDGE