State of Punjab vs Suresh

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Thuman Ram injured stated to S.I./S.H.O. Ravinder Singh of Police Station, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana within the precincts of Christian Medical College Hospital, Ludhiana, at 3.45 a.m. on 12th October, 1983 :

"I have been working as Sweeper in the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, since 1960 and in these days I have been doing work in the office of the Dean, College of Agriculture. Yesterday on the 11th October, 1983 at about 8.00 p.m. I was sitting outside my house. Shri Jai Chand S/o Babu Ram and Rehtu Ram Malla Ram, residents of Rajpura Colony, P.A.U., Ludhiana were sitting with me. Suresh S/o Sukhbir Balmiki, resident of Rajpura Colony, P.A.U., Ludhiana came there and immediately having arrived there, he gave a Chhuri (daggar) blow in my chest. I snatched the Chhuri from him and raised an alarm of `Marta, Marta'' (killed, killed). Sh. Jai Chand and Rehtu Ram who were sitting by my side also raised an alarm `Na Maro,`Na Maro'' (do not kill, do not kill). On hearing their raula Suresh fled away from the spot. In the meantime, my son Hukam Chand and Matu Ram had arrived at the place of occurrence and I narrated the whole occurrence to them also. Hukam Chand and Matu Ram got me admitted in the C.M.C. Hospital for treatment. The cause of grudge is that about one month ago, a quarrel had taken place between my son Hukam Chand and Suresh. But the persons residing in the locality had got a compromise effected. But Suresh having kept the said grudge in his mind, has given a knife blow to me."

On being charged with the commission of the offence under Section of the Indian Penal Code accused Suresh pleaded `not guilty'' thereto claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated April 30, 1984 ld. trial Court acquitted the accused. Feeling aggrieved therefrom the of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 100DBA of 1985 in this Act.

We have heard Shri S.K. Sharma, DAG Punjab, for the State, G.S. Punia, Advocate, with Sarvshri K.S. Cheema and K.S. Sidhu, Advocates for the respondent and have carefully perused the relevant record.

The occurrence took place at 8.00 p.m. on October 11, 1983. First Information Report came to be recorded after 8 hours at 4.30 a.m. on October 12, 1983. Special report reached the llaqa Magistrate at 1.30 p.m. on October 14, 1983. In terms of the Supreme Court observations in Ishwar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2423 delay in dispatching the First Information Report to the Magistrate is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the First Information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and emblishments to set up a distorted version of the occurrence. In this particular there is no tangible explanation as to why the lodging of the First Information Report was delayed. Learned trial Court observed in para 9 of its judgment :

"On behalf of the accused, it is argued that there were five persons who were at the spot and yet no one chose to go to the Police for lodging the FIR. The occurrence, if the case of the prosecution is to be accepted, was witnessed by Jai Chand and Rehtu Ram. These two persons are father and son and Jai Chand PW says that his sister is married to Thaman Ram. Immediately, after the raula being raised, Mattu Ram, another relation of Thuman Ram and his son Hukam Chand had reached the spot. Thereafter, Thuman Ram was taken away to the Hospital in a rickshaw by Matu Ram and Hukam Chand. Rehtu Ram and his son Jai Chand were doing nothing thereafter. Both these witnesses are eyewitnesses and the Police Station is only about one furlong from Gate No. 1 of the Punjab Agricultural University Campus and yet neither the fatherinlaw nor the brotherinlaw go to the Police Station for having the FIR recorded".

All this discredits the prosecution version as concocted and thought out; much less natural.

Presence of Rehtu Ram, Jai Chand, Matu Ram and Hukam Chand at the place of occurrence besides injured Thaman Ram is rendered doubtful by the course of conduct attributed to them. After Thuman Ram had snatched the weapon of offence from the assailant Suresh as claimed in the First Information Report then all these four persons would have overpowered Suresh and not allowed him to escape from the place of occurrence. Furthermore, after Matu Ram and Hukam Chand had taken the injured Thuman Ram to the Hospital, the fatherinlaw and brotherinlaw of the injured named Rehtu Ram and Jai Chand, who were both eyewitnesses to the occurrence would have certainly reported the matter to the police. The course of conduct attributed to all of them four renders their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time doubtful.

The weapon of offence is alleged to have been recovered and handed over to the doctor and thereafter taken into possession from the doctor by ASI yet the doctor does not say anything about this having been done and as a result thereof one has to conclude that in all probability injured Thuman. Ram did not snatch the weapon of offence from the accused and Suresh has been inculated falsely after due deliberations on account of previous enmity.

In result the appeal filed by the State of Punjab gets wholly bereft of any merit therein and is consequently dismissed.