STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by special leave is by the State of Punjab against the judgment dated 30. 10. 2002 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 613 sb of 1987.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief was that on 2. 7. 1986 one Jagir Singh and his uncle Pal Singh were standing in the plot of Pal singh and talking to each other. At that time, Mohinder Singh came near them in a drunken state, and shouted that he will teach a lesson to Pal Singh for not allowing him to tether his cattle in the plot. He gave a gandasi blow which hit Jagir Singh on the head. The injured Jagir Singh was taken by Pal Singh to his house and on the next day he was admitted to S. G. T. B. Hospital, Amritsar. It is stated that on 3. 7. 1986, Head Constable Balwinder Singh reached the hospital but as the doctor informed him that Jagir Singh was not in a position to make any statement, FIR was not registered. However, on 6. 7. 1986, Head Constable Balwinder Singh met Pal Singh in the said hospital and his statement was recorded and on that basis FIR was registered. Thereafter, the respondent was charged with the offence under Section 307 IPC and he faced trial. The injured Jagir Singh was examined as PW3, his uncle Pal Singh who was the informant was examined as PW2. Balwinder Singh, Head Constable was examined as PW4 and the Doctor was examined as PW1. The trial Court by its judgment dated 27. 10. 1987 held the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him for four years R. I. with a fine of Rupees One Thousand under Section 307 IPC. The appeal filed by the respondent-accused was allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 30. 10. 2002 primarily on the ground that the occurrence had taken place on 2. 7. 1986, and the FIR was registered on 6. 7. 1986, after four days, and there was no satisfactory explanation as to why Pal Singh waited for four days for registering the FIR.

(3.) AS noted above, the incident is of the year 1986. The High Court has allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent in the year 2002, giving cogent reasons. We find no reasons to interfere with the said judgment. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.