STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. AJAIB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India the question that arises for consideration is whether the Order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is so palpably erroneous or perverse that it is liable to interference in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court.

(2.) In an unfortunate incident which took place at 11 P-M. on 16th December, 1976 on the G.T. Road just in front of Sat Kartar Cold Storage, Phagwara, two police officers of the Punjab Traffic Police appeared to have fallen out on the authority to check the truck on the G.T.Road resulting in death of one Assistant Sub - Inspector of Police and one constable and conviction of the respondent under Section 302, IPC who was Sub-Inspector of Police at the time of incident, but since the date of acquittal he has now become Deputy Superintendent of Police. There was no dispute about the time, date and place of incident. Nor there was any dispute that Assistant Sub - Inspector Gurnam Singh and constable Paramjit Singh died as a result of shooting from the service revolver by the Sub-Inspector Ajaib Singh. The dispute, mainly, was whether the incident took place as stated by the prosecution and the shooting and killing by the respondent was unwarranted, unjustified and deliberate or it was, as claimed by the respondent, in exercise of right of private defence. The respodent was tried and convicted under Section 302, for committing murder of ASI Gurnam Singh and constable Paramjit Singh and sentenced by the trial Judge to undergo life imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 87 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were to run concurrently. His co-accused Balbir Kumar was tried under Section 302 but convicted under Section 383, IPC for causing simple hurts to constable Jit Ram P-W. 10, and Channan Singh, P-W. 13, He was directed to be released on probation. Another accused constable Jit Singh was acquitted of all charges. The State did not file any appeal either against release of Balbir Kumar on probation or acquttal of Jit Singh. But revision was filed by one Sukattar Singh for enhancing the sentence of respondent from life imprisonment to death and convicting others suitably. The High Court dismissed the revision for enhancing sentence and further acquitted the respondent. The State is aggrieved by acquittal of the respondent. Since both the trial Judge and the High Court have considered the evidence in detail, it does not appear necessary to refer to them, except the findings arrived at by them on which there is not much dispute. The findings recorded by the trial Judge were summarised by the High Court as under:-

(3.) The High Court while agreeing with the findings of the trial Judge on these aspects further held that the story given by the prosecution that the deceased had gone to the spot for nakabandi for apprehending the robbers did not inspire confidence as there was no entry to that effect in the Rojnamcha (daily diary) of the Police Station, Kapurthala. The High Court held that no material was brought on record to prove the First Information Report of the case in which those robbers were wanted. Further, according to the High Court, it was not reasonable to believe that Assistant Sub-Inspector Gurnam Singh accompained by constables would have gone on such a dangerous mission without any arm, except the service revolver with him. The High Court categorically concluded that the deceased and his companions were checking the trucks on the G.T. Road and extracting money from the truck drives, 'therefore the respondent must have felt offended because it amounted to not only an unecessary interferene in the sphere of his jurisdiction but even to an illegal act of extracting money from the drivers of the vehicles by them. In this situation, when Ajaib Singh, accused, questions A.S.I. Gurnam Singh regarding his and his companions' misconduct, an altercation must have ensued between both of them which was the cause of the main occurrence. Thus, the version of the origin of the occurrence as given out by the accused appears to be more probable than the version of the same as put forth by the prosection. It has been even so held by the trial Court in its impugned judgment. The High Court reversed the finding of the trial Judge that the injuries on the person of the respondent were self-inflicted as reference in this behalf be made to the statement of Dr. Ashwani Kumar, P-W. 3. The aforesaid injuries received by the members of the either party do not appear to have been self-suffered by them. The learned trial Court has found that the injuries of S.I. Ajaib Singh could be self-suffered as deposed to by the doctor. But this finding appears to be incorrect because even with regard to the injuries of constables Jit Ram and Chanan Singh, the doctor has opined that those would also be self-suffered. It is not understandable how the learned trial Court in spite of that medical evidence has held that the injuries of Constable Jit Ram and Chanan Singh P-Ws. could not be self-suffered. The High Court found that it appeared that Sub-Inspector Balbir Kumar of the accused party and constables Paramjit Singh, Jit Ram and Chanan Singh of the deceased party were armed with dandas at the time of occurrence and they probably used the same against their opponents. The High Court also placed reliance on the report of forensic expert that shots had been fired from the revolver of ASI Gurnam Singh. It did not believe the version of prosecution that in fact the revolver of Gurnam Singh was not taken out from the holster because when the investigating officer went at the spot he found it bolted with the belt inside the woollen overcoat. The High Court consequently was of the opinion that the act of shooting was within the scope of Clauses I and II of the exception as contained in Section 100 of the IPC and,therefore, the respondent was entitled to acquittal.