KANCHAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to a judgment dated 25.11.1999 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.206/97 arising out of FIR No.264/95 registered at police station Tilak Nagar by which the appellant was convicted under Section 308/326/324/34 IPC. By an order dated 04.12.99, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine Rs.25,000/ - under Section 308/34 IPC; RI for ten years with fine Rs.25,000/ - under Section 326/34 IPC and RI for three years with fine Rs.5,000/ - under section 324/34 IPC. The sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge - sheet was that on 14.04.1995 at about 5.30 pm in the street opposite House No.3B/103, Vishnu Garden, the appellant sharing common intention with his sons Sukhvinder Singh and Harvinder Singh inflicted injuries to Raj Rani, Deputy Singh and Bhaktawar Singh. The police machinery swung into action when information about the incident was conveyed and DD No.12 (Ex.PW -15/A) was recorded at 06.20 pm at police post Khyala. SI Jagdish Chander (PW -14) to whom the investigation was entrusted lodged First Information Report after recording complainant -Raj Rani's statement (Ex.PW -1/A) from the hospital by sending rukka (Ex.PW -14/A). Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellant and his sons Sukhvinder Singh and Harvinder Singh were arrested and crime weapons were recovered pursuant to disclosure statements. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the appellant and his sons, they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses in all. In their 313 statements, the accused persons denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. They raised the plea of 'alibi' and claimed that on the relevant date, they were present in village Biggar, Fatheabad (Hissar) at Gurudwara Teg Bahadur to perform 'kirtan'. DW -1 (Dalbir Singh) and DW -2 (Ajit Singh) appeared in defence. The trial resulted in their conviction. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal. It is pertinent to note that Sukhvinder Singh expired in Tihar Jail on 31.05.2000. Co -convict Harvinder Singh also expired during the pendency of Crl.A.No.64/2000.

(3.) THE occurrence took place at around 05.30 pm on 14.04.1995. DD No.12 (Ex.PW -15/A) was recorded in promptitude at around 06.20 pm on getting information regarding use of swords at B/83 Vishnu Garden. SI Jagdish Chander (PW -14), along with Ct.Satbir went to the spot and came to know that the injured had already been taken to Deen Dayal Upadhyay hospital (in short DDU hospital). Leaving Ct.Ghasi Ram to safeguard the spot, he went to DDU hospital and found Deputy Singh, Bhaktawar Singh and Raj Rani admitted there for Deputy Singh and Bhaktawar Singh were 'unfit' to make treatment. statements. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording complainant -Raj Rani's statement (Ex.PW -1/A) vide rukka (Ex.PW -14/A) at around 08.15 pm. MLC (Ex.PW -12/B) (of Raj Rani) records her arrival time at DDU hospital at 06.20 pm with the alleged history of 'assault'. In her statement (Ex.PW -1/A) given to the police at the earliest available opportunity, Raj Rani gave detailed account of the incident and implicated the appellant and his sons for inflicting injuries to her and her sons Deputy Singh and Bakhtawar Singh. She attributed specific and definite role to each of them and also assigned ill - motive for causing injuries. Since the FIR was lodged without any delay, there was least possibility of the complainant to fabricate or concoct a false story in such a short interval. In the case of Jail Prakash Singh v.State of Bihar & Anr. 2012 CRI.L.J.2101 the Supreme Court held: -