State of Punjab vs Harwinderpal Singh and Others

The State calls in question acquittal of the respondents of the offences under Sections 302/324/34 IPC.

Case of the prosecution is that Mohan Lal PW 8 was running a Halwai shop opposite Bus Stand Sangrur. Pawan Kumar, deceased, brother of PW 8 Mohan Lal was also running a Halwai shop nearby. On 20.12.1992, Pawan Kumar went to Sangrur town but did not return till 8 PM. Mohan Lal PW alongwith his relation Kishan Lal went out for search of Pawan Kumar in the car of Kishan Lal. At about 9 PM, when they reached near the shop outside the office of Zila Paqrishad, Sangrur, they saw in the municipal electric light that Pawan Kumar had been surrounded by the respondents-accused. Taranjit Singh accused raised a ''lalkara'' that Pawan Kumar be taught a lesson for the old quarrel. Harwinderpal Singh struck a blow with his knife on the chest of Pawan Kumar. Tarwinderpal Singh also struck a blow with his knife on the right side of the head of Pawan Kumar. Sanjiv Kumar PW tried to intervene. Taranjit Singh, accused gave a knife blow in the abdomen and left side of Sanjiv Kumar followed by another blow on the back of Sanjiv Kumar. Mohan Lal and Kishan Lal raised alarm "Mar Dita Mar Dita". All the accused with their respective weapons escaped. Both the injured were put in the car of Amandeep Singh son of Surjit Singh and taken to Civil Hospital, Sangrur. Few days prior to the assault, an altercation had taken place between the accused on the one hand and deceased Pawan Kumar on the other hand, at the shop of Pawan Kumar and the accused had threatened that they will see him later on.

On account of serious condition of Pawan Kumar, on the advice of the doctor, he was taken to the Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. Pawan Kumar, however, died on the way. His dead body was kept in Civil Hosptial Sangrur. PW 8 Mohan Lal was going to the police station and on the way his statement was recorded by SI Kewal Krishan on 21.12.1992 at 5 AM near Bus Stand where he was on duty. SI Kewal Krishan reached the hospital, examined the dead body, prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem.

Dr. Parbhat Kumar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sangrur examined Pawan Kumar on 20.12.1992 at 10.20 PM and found following injuries:

Incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the front of chest in 3rd intercostal space just on the right margin of sternum. The depth could not be probed as it was going to the chest cavity. Fresh bleeding was present. Call was sent to the Surgeon and case was shown to him immediately. The x-ray was advised.

Incised wound 11 cm x 1/2 cm on the right lateral aspect of head in the parietal and temporal area 13 cm above the tragus of right ear cut in the bone, was present in the line of wound, clotted blood was present in the hair-x-ray was advised.

He examined Sanjiv Kumar on the same day at 10.45 PM and found the following injuries:

Incised wound 2 cm x 3/4 cm on the back of left lumber area at the level of L-1, L-2 vertebrae situated 3 cm lateral to spine. Clotted blood was present in wound and on his skin around the wound and wound was going deep into the back of abdomen. X-ray was advised and referred to Surgeon. Cut in Sweater shirt, buniyan was present.

Incised wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm on the front of left lower abdomen in left iliac fossa area and wound was muscle deep. Clotted blood was present. Cut in sweater shirt, buniyan were pesent. Wound was 8 cm lateral to mid line and 10 cm below the umblicus and referred to Surgeon.

On the same day, at 10.30 PM, Dr. Parbhat Kumar medico-legally examined Taranjit Singh, accused and found the following injuries:

Incised wound 6.5 cm x 1 cm on the front of upper part of left side of forehead and frontal area situated 8 cm above the left eye brow clotted blood was present x-ray was advised and referred to Surgeon.

On 21.12.1992 at 2.10 PM, Dr. LC Bansal performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of Pawan Kumar and made following observations:

The length of body was 5-9. It was body of moderately build and nourished, young male wearing a pant. Rigor mortis had started setting in. Post mortem staining was present.

The following injuries were found:

Stitched wound on the front of right side of chest 1.5 cm long in third intercostal space just lateral to sternum and 5.5 cm medial to right nipple. It was oblique and on opening the stitches clotted blood was present in the wound. On further dissection underlying intercostal muscle, pleura on right side and right sided lung were seen cut. Right chest cavity was full of fluid and clotted blood.

Incised wound on the lateral aspect of right side of head 11 cm x 1/2 cm situated 10 cm above the right ear and was in temporal and parietal area, clotted blood was present in the wound, hair in the area of wound were seen cut, underlying skull bones outer table was seen cut.

The doctor observed strong smell of alcohol coming out of the stomach of the deceased. Injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death. The cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Both the injuries were caused by sharp weapon and the time that elapsed between injury and death was within six hours and that between death and post mortem was within 24 hours.

On 23.12.1992, accused Harwinderpal Singh and Tarwinderpal Singh were arrested. Harwinderpal Singh made a disclosure statement leading to recovery of one karad-shaped knife Ex. P7. Tarwinderpal Singh accused also made a disclosure statement leading to recovery of knife-shaped dagger Ex. P6. On 24.12.1992, Taranjit Singh accused was arrested.

After investigation, the accused were put up for trial.

The prosecution examined PW 1 Dr. Ashok Kuamr, Surgical Specialist, PW 2 Dr. Parbhat Kumar, who conducted MLRs, PW 3 Dr. LC Bansal, who conducted post-mortem, PW 4 Dr. Hardit Jyoti, Radiologist, PW 5, Dharminder Singh, Draftsman, PW 6 Darshan Singh constable, PW 7 Constable Teja Singh, PW 8 Mohan Lal, complainant, PW 9 Sanjiv Kumar, injured eye witness, PW 10 HC Bhim Sain, who tendered affidavit Ex. PQ, PW 11 ASI Naresh Kumar, PW 12 Sat Pal and PW 13 SI Kewal Krishan, Investigating Officer.

Accused Taranjit Singh denied the prosecution allegations and stated that Pawan Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar were persons of bad antecedents and used to take liquor and indulge in gambling. On 20.12.1992, an altercation took place between them when light went off. Accused Taranjit Singh tried to intervene and also suffered injury in the process. They were taken to the hospital by a passer-by. Taranjit Singh was arrested from the hospital.

Sanjiv Kumar falsely implicated him to save himself. His brothers Harwinderpal Singh and Tarwinderpal Singh were not present at the time of occurrence.

After considering the evidence on record, the trial court held that the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondents, inter-alia, for the following reasons:

(i) All the three injured were having smell of alcohol as noticed by the doctors.

(ii) Mohan Lal PW 8 did not appear to have witnessed the occurrence. Pawan Kumar, injured was brought to the hospital by Amandeep Singh and Sanjiv Kumar reached the hospital of his own. If Mohan Lal had actually been present at the scene of occurrence, they would have taken his brother and Sanjiv Kumar in the car in which he had gone.

(iii) Amandeep Singh was not examined by the prosecution.

(iv) Kishan Lal who accompanied Mohan Lal to the place of occurrence was not examined by the prosecution.

(v) PW8 Mohan Lal had given contradictory version. In his statement before the court, he stated that the deceased Pawan Kumar was taken to CMC Ludhiana and was declared dead there, while in the FIR, he stated that the deceased died on the way and was never taken to Ludhiana.

(vi) Record of CMC, Ludhiana was not produced to corroborate the version of Mohan Lal that he had gone with the deceased to CMC Ludhiana.

(vii) Version of Mohan Lal PW 8 was further unreliable as no blood stains struck on his clothes when he put the injured Pawan Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar in the car.

(viii) There was delay in lodging the FIR. Occurrence took place on 20.12.1992 at 9 PM. The injured were taken to the hospital soon thereafter. The deceased Pawan Kumar who was taken away to Ludhiana, was brought back to the hospital at 3 AM on 21.12.1992. The doctor sent a chit to the police station at 3.30 AM but statement of Mohan Lal was recorded at 5 AM on 21.12.1992. Special report reached the magistrate at 10 AM. Distance of the court from police station was 250 yards. The report is alleged to have been dispatched at 6.15 AM.

(ix) Statement of Taranjit Singh accused who was also having injuries on his vital parts and was brought to the hospital, was not recorded.

(x) Version given by the defence that Sanjiv Kumar and Pawan Kumar were gambling after taking liquor and an altercation took place and they caused injuries to each other and Tarnajit Singh also received injuries when he intervened, was probable.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the trial court.

It is well-settled that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court, after considering the evidence has given reasons for disbelieving the presence of PW 8 Mohan Lal, brother of the deceased who is the main witness. Injuries on vital parts of Taranjit Singh, accused remained unexplained. Since the ocular version was not reliable, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR has also been held to be significant. In this situation, view taken by the trial court that out of two versions about the person, who caused injuries to deceased Pawan Kumar - one, while according to the prosecution, injuries were caused by Taranjit Singh and other accused, and the other that the injuries were caused by Sanjiv Kumar PW 9 - the version put-forward by the prosecution was not established beyond reasonable doubt, is certainly a possible view and is not open to interference merely because two views may be possible.

Scope of appeal against acquittal has been gone into by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833, wherein it was observed:

The principle to be followed by appellate courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable it is a compelling reason for interference see Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, . The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, :

While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions.

In view of above, the appeal is dismissed.