9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... convicted under Section 307 IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of ₹ 500- each and in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that at about 7.00 p.m. on 23.5.1987 the complainant. Amar Singh along will his sons Lakha Singh, Gurbachan Singh and Bhan Singh and two others namely, Kashmira Singh and Pritam Singh was coming towards his outer house after having unloaded the trolley of wheat straw. When they were at a distance of about 5-6 karams from the Baithak of Gurdial Singh, they saw that accused Balwinder Singh (A-1) and Avtar Singh (A-2), armed with SBBL guns and accused Surjit Singh (a-3) and Mal Singh (A-4) armed with DBBL guns were standing there. A-1 entered the Baithak and fired a short towards them through the iron gauze of the window which hit Kashmira Singh. Surjit Singh (A-3) fired a shot which hit Laksha Singh on his face and left side of the neck and right hand and a second short which hit Amar Singh. A-4 fired a shot which hit Bhan Singh and a second shot which hit Gurbachan Singh. A-2 fired a shot which hit Prita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the investigation of the case was tainted. 5. Before examining the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to briefly refer to the evidence, which has been adduced by the prosecution. PW5 Dr. D.S. Mohan, Medical Officer, CMC Hospital, Ludhiana admitted all the injured, namely Amar Singh, Bhan Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Pritam Singh and Kashmira Singh in the casualty ward on 23.5.1987. PW1 Dr. William F. Masish, Registrar, Department of Surgery, CMC, Ludhiana medically examined PW7 Bhan Singh at 11.30 p.m. on 23.5.1987 and found multiple pellet injuries 14 in number on lower abdomen and also multiple pellet injuries on right fore-arm and right leg. On internal examination, he found multiple small holders in the terminal ileum and preformation in Caceum. Bhan Singh was discharged from hospital on 8.6.1987 after a surgery had been performed. The same doctor medically examined PW8 Gurbachan Singh at 12.45 a.m. in the night of 23/24.5.1987 and found pellet injuries on right hand and on epigastrium region. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries No. 4 and 5 of PW7 Bhan Singh were dangerous to life and duration of injuries sustained by both the injured was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p.m. on 23.5.1987 he was coming to his inner house after unloading the trolley of what straw along with his sons Lakha Singh, Gurbachan Singh and Bhan Singh and also Kashmira Singh and Pritam Singh. When he was at a distance of 5-6 karams from the Baithak of Gurdial Singh, he saw accused A-1 and A-2 armed with SBBL guns and A-3 and A-4 armed with DBBL guns standing in front of the Baithak of Gurdial Singh. A-1 then entered the Baithak and fired a shot through the iron gauze of the window which hit Kashmira Singh. The first shot fired by A-3 hit Lakha Singh on his face and the second shot fired by him hit him on him arm and head. A-4 fired a shot which hit Bhan Singh and another shot fired by him hit Gurbachan Singh. Thereafter, A-2 fired a short which hit Pritam Singh. After causing the injuries, the accused ran away, Lakha Singh had fallen down and was removed to the house. All the injured were brought to bus stand Sangrur by Major Singh in a tractor trolley where they hired two taxies and proceeded to CMC, Ludhiana, where they were admitted in the night. PW7 Bhan Singh and PW8 Gurbachan Singh have given similar version of the incident and have fully corroborated the testimony of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not cared to examine the details of the intrinsic merits of the evidence of the eye-witnesses and has rejected their evidence on the general grounds, the order of acquittal passed by the High Court resulted in a gross and substantial mis-carriage of justice so as to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 8. In the present case, the incident took place at about 7.00 p.m. on 23.5.1987. On 23rd May the sun sets fairly late and there is good light at 7.00 p.m. and as such the witnesses must have seen and identified the assailants who were all residents of the same village Chatha Sekhwan and were very well known to them. The three eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution, namely, PW-4 Amar Singh, PW7 Bhan Singh and PW8 Gurbachan Singh are injured witnesses and, therefore, no doubt can be raised about their presence on the spot. They have given a consistent version that A-1 and A-2 were armed with SBBL guns and A-3 and A-4 were armed with DBBL guns and that all the accused fired from their respective weapons causing injuries to them and also to Kashmira Singh, Pritam Singh and the deceased Lakha Singh. Thus, the evidence on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that it may be informed whether statement of the witnesses can be recorded. Dr. Koshi George then gave in writing that Amar Singh was in fit condition to give his statement. It was thereafter that PW14 Sardara Singh, S.I., recorded the statement of Amar Singh at about 5.30 p.m. This statement in writing was sent to PS Sangrur through Constable Joga Singh on the basis of which PW17 Om Prakash, SHO, Kotwali Sangrur, recorded the FIR, Exh. PJ/2 at 9.20 p.m. on 24.5.1987. The High Court merely said that as the place of occurrence is only 4 kilometers from the Police Station and the FIR was lodged after 26 hours, the delay in lodging thereof has rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The sequence of events and the manner in which the FIR was lodged have not at all been taken into consideration. It is quite likely that Amar Singh was too shocked to think about the lodging of the FIR. His only anxiety must have been to anyhow rush to the hospital to save the lives of his sons. It is noteworthy that he did not go to any nearby dispensary or an ordinary hospital, but went to a good medical college hospital, which was at Ludhiana to get the best possible treatment. In the night he and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e promptitude in giving the report to the police. At times being grief-stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go the police station for giving the report. Of course, in cases arising out of acute factions their is a tendency to implicate persons belonging to the opposite faction falsely. In order to avert the danger of convicting such innocent persons the Courts should be cautious to scrutinise the evidence of such interested witnesses with greater care and caution and separate grain from the chaff after subjecting the evidence to a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR also will have to be scrutinised carefully. However, unless there are indications of fabrication, the Court cannot reject the prosecution version as given in the FIR and later substantiated by the evidence merely on the ground of delay. These are all matters for appreciations and much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 11. In Zahoor and Ors. v. State of U.P., 1991 CriLJ 56, it was held that mere delay by itself is not enough to reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give information to the nearest Executive Magistrate and shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and raw up a report of the apparent cause of death describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks or injury as may be found on the body and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appear to have been inflicted. The requirement of the section is that the police officer shall record the apparent cause of death describing the wounds as may be found on the body and also the weapon or instrument by which they appear to have been inflicted and this has to be done in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood. The Section does not contemplate that the manner in which the incident took place or the names of the accused should be mentioned in the inquest report. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death, namely whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory and the third is that in the Daily Diary Register (DDR), the names of the witnesses, weapons of offence and the place of occurrence were not mentioned. 15. Coming to the last point regarding certain omissions in the DDR, it has come in evidence that on the basis of the statement of PW4 Amar Singh, which was recorded by PW14 Sardara Singh, S.I. in the hospital a formal FIR was recorded at the Police Station at 9.20 p.m. IN accordance with Section 155 Cr.P.C. the contents of the FIR were also entered in the DDR, which contained the names of the witnesses, weapons of offence and place of occurrence and it was not very necessary to mention them separately all over again. It is not the case of the defence that the names of the accused were not mentioned in the DDP. We fail to understand as to how it was necessary for the investigation officer to take in his possession the wire gauze of the window from where A-1 is alleged to have fired. The wire gauze and absolutely no bearing on the prosecution case and the investigating officer was not supposed to cut and take out the same from the window where it was fixed. It would have been certainly better if the investigating agency ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ira Singh and Pritam Singh and one Ramesh, whose name was mentioned in the FIR, were not examined. Shri Ashwani Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused-respondents has vehemently urged that the purpose of a criminal trial is not to support the prosecution theory but to investigate the offence and to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused and the duty of the public prosecutor is to represent the administration of justice and therefore the testimony of all the available eye witnesses should be before the Court and in support of this contention he has placed reliance on State of U.P Anr. v. Jaggo alias Jagdish Ors. 1971 CriLJ 1173. It is true that the witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based must be called by the prosecution, whether effect of their testimony is for or against the case of the prosecution. However, that does not mean that everyone who has witnessed the occurrence, whatever their number be, must be examined as a witness. The prosecution in the present case had examined three eye-witnesses who were all injured witnesses. The mere fact that Kashmira Singh and Pritam Singh were not examined cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
