Kartar Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab

Surinder Singh, J.

The six appellants in this case are (1) Kartar Singh son of Inder Singh, (2) Lashkar Singh, (3) Bawa Singh, (4) Santa Singh, (5) Ajit Singh, all sons of Kishan Singh : and (6) Nazar Singh, son of Kartar Singh . The Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, convicted all the appellants under sections 325/149, Indian Penal Code. Kartar Singh and Nazar Singh appellants were sentenced to 11/2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ each, in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months, each. The remaining appellants were given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and were directed to furnish personal bonds and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.2,000/ each, for a period of one year. They were also burdened with Rs. 200/ each to be paid as compensation to Karnail Singh, injured person.

The prosecution story in brief, as depicted by Karnail Singh (PW 2), the injured person is that on September, 13, 1982, he had gone to see Senior Superintendent of Police Gurdaspur, and had made an application against the appellants for having given him injuries. He had also apprehended further assault at the hands of the appellants. After the meeting with the Senior Superintendent of Police at about 3/4 p.m., he boarded a bus for Sirihargobindpur. It is stated that Teja Singh (PW 3) and Gulzar Singh (PW 5) also traveled with him in the same bus. All of the them got down from the bus on main road on the point from where the link road led to village Mari Panwan. Karnail Singh PW sat on the carrier of the cycle of Gulzar Singh. When they reached near Angarh Bridge, Karnail Singh PW went ahead towards the village. It is alleged that the six appellants suddenly emerged from a surgarcane field. Kartar Singh gave a dang blow to Karnal Singh on his left flank. Nazar Singh gave him a dang blow on his left ankle. Santa Singh pulled his beard. Ajit Singh pulled his mustaches. Bawa Singh dragged him on the ground by holdings his legs. All the appellants are also said to have given him fist blows. Gulzar Singh and Teja Singh PWs were attrached to the spot and they rescued Karnail Singh PW.

On the next day i.e., September 14, 1982, Head Constable Gehal Singh came to the Primary Health Center, Harchowal where Karnail Singh PW was receiving medical aid. His statement Exhibit PB was recorded by the Head Constable which Karnail Singh PW signed. As a result of their prosecution, the appellants were convicted and sentenced, as already noticed.

A perusal of the statement made by Karnail Singh PW at the trial shows that he has destroyed the very root of the prosecution version. This fact would be revealed by the statement made by him in his crossexamination, extract whereof is reproduced below. Reference in this extract is made to his statement Exhibit PB made to police, which forms the basis of the First Information Report in the present case :

"I did not state in my statement Exhibit PB that on 13.9.1982, I had come to Gurdaspur to see SSP against the accused persons. I had stated to HC that day I had made an application to the SSP against the accused (Confronted not so recorded). I have not stated to the HC that the day I had come to Gurdaspur in connection with domestic affairs. (Confronted where it is so record). I had stated to the HC that I had told SSP that the accused had given me injuries earlier and I apprehend injuries from them in future (Confronted not so recorded). I do not remember if I had stated in my statement Exhibit PB that I had sat on the carrier of the cycle of Gulzar Singh. (Confronted not so recorded). I had stated to the HC that Gulzar Singh and Teja Singh got down at the canal minor bridge of Angarh while I proceeded ahead (Confronted not so recorded). I had stated in my statement that all the six accused emerged out of sugarcane field at the time of attack (Confronted with Exhibit PB where it is not so recorded). I had stated in my statement that Santa Singh accused caught hold of my beard and Ajit Singh accused pulled out my mustaches. (Confronted where it is so recorded but is recorded as follows : that all the accused pulled out my beard). I had stated in my statement that there is a sugarcane field nearby. (Confronted not so recorded). I had stated in my statement that Kartar Singh and Nazar Singh had dangs (Confronted not so recorded). I had stated in my statement that Kartar Singh gave me a dang blow in my left flank and Nazar Singh gave me a dang blow in my left ankle (Confronted with statement Exhibit PB where it is not so recorded). I had stated in my statement that Kartar Singh accused had asked his coaccused that I be given injuries not apparent (Confronted not so recorded). I had stated in my statement that I was dragged by Bawa Singh."

The above deposition is a clear pointer to the unreliability of Karnail Singh PW who has gone back on his own statement recorded at the earliest opportunity. Apart from this circumstance, the witness admitted even in his examinationinchief that he has a long standing enmity with the appellants and that he had initiated proceedings under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, against Kartar Singh. Another case under sections 107/151, Code of Criminal Procedure, was also launched by him against some of the appellants and their family members. In regard to the delay in the lodging of the First Information Report, Karnail Singh gave no explanation. On the other hand, he admitted that in a mela which was going on during the days of the occurrence, he never reported the matter to the police which was posted in the mela. In these circumstances, it is not safe to place reliance on the word of mouth of Karnail Singh P.W.

In so far as the two alleged eyewitnesses Teja Singh (PW 3) and Gulzar Singh (PW 5) are concerned, the Investigating Officer, Assistant SubInspector Jagdish Raj (PW 8) admitted straightaway that he recorded the statement of these witnesses on October 12, 1982, i.e., after a lapse of one month from the alleged occurrence. This circumstance alone would make the testimony of these witnesses quite doubtful.

In the ultimate analysis it cannot be said that the prosecution has brought home the guilt against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of this doubt must go to them. The appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are set aside. they are acquitted of the charge framed against them. They are on bail. their bail bonds, as also the personal bonds, if furnished under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, stand discharged. The amounts, if any, deposited by them, shall be refunded.