Criminal Revision No. 2334 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2334 of 2004 Date of decision: 01.11.2011 Manmohan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Harinder Singh etc. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. Monmohan Singh, petitioner, has filed this revision petition to impugn the judgment passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sangrur acquitting the respondents, Harinder Singh, Harjinder Singh and Major Singh. The prosecution story in brief is that Manmohan Singh and deceased Sohan Singh are two brothers and are son of Jeet Singh. Their father Jeet Singh had gone to Barnala. Manmohan Singh was posted as Lineman in Punjab State Electricity Board and was returning from duty at 6.00 p.m. on 06.12.1999. Simultaneously Sohan Singh had reached the house from the fields. They both thereafter had gone to outer house. While Manmohan Singh, his wife Paramjit Kaur and other family members were waiting for Sohan Singh to take meals, they heard noise 'Marta Marta'. Manmohan Singh went there and found Harjinder Singh son of Darbara Singh giving fist blows in the abdomen Criminal Revision No. 2334 of 2004 2 of Sohan Singh, while Harjinder Singh caught hold of long hairs and Major Singh was giving kick blows in the flank and abdomen of Sohan Singh. Manmohan Singh raised alarm, which attracted Balwinder Kaur wife of his brother Sohan Singh. They rescued Sohan Singh from the accused. All the accused ran away from the spot after leaving Sohan Singh in unconscious condition. The motive of the fight as alleged is that the accused used to create nuisance after drinking liquor and the respondents used to stop him from doing so, for which they carried a grudge against him for his behaviour. Manmohan Singh and Balwinder Singh took injured Sohan Singh in van to Civil hospital, Dhuri when he died on his way to hospital. Body was, accordingly, brought back. The FIR was lodged at 11.30 a.m. on 07.12.1999. The investigation followed leading to trial of the respondents for offence under Section 304 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Two out of which i.e. Manmohan Singh and Balwinder Kaur allegedly gave eye witness account of the incident. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence and considering the evidence brought by the petitioner, acquitted all the respondents. The judgment passed by the trial Court is, accordingly, impugned through the present revision petition. At the outset counsel for the respondents points out that Major Singh, in the meantime, has expired. It would have been appropriate for the counsel to place on record the death certificate by moving a formal application. However, the death certificate is handed Criminal Revision No. 2334 of 2004 3 over in the Court and is kept on record. The State counsel may, in the meantime, verify the fact of the death of Major Singh and submit this information with the Registry of this Court. While acquitting the respondents, the trial Court has not believed the version of two of the witnesses i.e. Manmohan Singh (PW2) and Balwinder Kaur (PW3). The revision petition was admitted primarily on the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that eye witness account has been disbelieved primarily on the ground that they were related to the deceased. This was not considered a sufficient reason to discard the evidence of eye witnesses. No doubt as per the law laid down through various judgments, merely because when witness is interested or related is not a sufficient reason to disbelieve such a witness. I have perused the evidence which is available with the counsel for the respondents. PW-2 and PW-3 had claimed to be the eyewitnesses but to an extent contradicted each other while under cross examination. Counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to that portion of the cross-examination where Manmohan Singh, PW2 has stated that he has seen the accused from a distance of 5/7 karams and had only seen the assailants from the backside. The evidence on record would also show that Manmohan Singh was waiting for his brother to come and take meal with him. At that time, the witness had statedly heard noise, which had made him to go to the scene of occurence. It is his alarm that had attracted Balwinder Kaur PW2 to the scene of incident. Obviously by then, the incident was bound to be over. Criminal Revision No. 2334 of 2004 4 My attention has also been drawn to the cross examination of Balwinder Kaur PW3 where she has stated that when she reached the scene, the incident had already been over. Obviously, she cannot be treated as witness, who is an eyewitness. Analyzing the evidence and these two witnesses, who are closely related to the deceased, it can be said that perhaps they were not rightly believed and relied upon by the trial Court. Trial Court has been under caution to appreciate the eyewitness account and did not disbelieve them only on the ground that they were not related to the deceased. They were related and interested witnesses but were not considered worthy of reliance on the basis of appreciation of their evidence and not only because of being interested a related witnesses. During cross examination Doctor has also deposed as under: “ I have heard the and agree with page 285 of Book of medical Jurisprudent by N.J. Mogi Addl. 19. On account of its situation, rupture of a normal spleen is very rare unless caused by sondiderable crushing and grinding force, such as the passing of a carriage of motor car over the body or by a crush in a railway accident, or by a fall from a very great height, in such cases it is usually associated with injuries to other solid organs and to the ribs overlying the spleen. I agree with that usually a ruptured spleen occur as a result of an industrial or traffic accident of the crushing or run over type-Blows on the abdomen or the left lower thorax and falls on to a projecting object are other causes of rupture. When Criminal Revision No. 2334 of 2004 5 rupture of the spleen occurs as a result of a traffic accident, associated injuries are commonly present.” Thus, the medical evidence would also lead to an inference that rupture perhaps has not been caused because of fists blows or kicks etc. Accordingly, no case for interference in the acquittal as recorded by the trial Court is made out. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. November 01, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE