STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JAGGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of Additional Chief Judicial. Magistrate Sangrur, dated 15/4/1987 whereby Jaggar Singh, Chand Singh, Pirthi Singh alias Golu and Bhola Singh, were acquitted of the charges framed against them under sections 326, 325, 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing injuries to Hakam Singh.

(2.) In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this case as emerge from the First Information Report recorded on the basis of the statement of Hakam Singh injured are that he had constructed a house. His house and that of his cousin Jaggar Singh accused adjoin each other and had a common wall. About three months prior to the present occurrence, Hakam Singh constructed roof by raising that common wall and Jaggar Singh had agreed to pay half of the amount spent of the construction of the said wall, after selling his wheat crop. On 18th of May, 1984 Hakam Singh requested Jaggar Singh to pay the aforesaid expenses in the presence of relations of Jaggar Singh accused, but, the latter took it ill as to why Hakam Singh had asked about payment in the presence of his relation Pala Singh and his wife Gurdev Kam. At about 2.30 P.M. when Hakam Singh alongwith Pala Singh was present in the field of Dalip Singh, which was on lease with Hakam Singh, Jaggar Singh and Golu accused armed with gandasis and Bhola Singh and Chand Singh armed with Sotis came there. At that time Jagger Singh reprimanded Hakam Singh as to why he had asked about payment of expenses from him in the presence of his relations and that he would teach a lesson to Hakam Singh for this insult. Immediately, thereafter, Jaggar Singh opened the attack and gave a gandasi blow to Hakam Singh on his left fore arm. Golu accused gave gandasi blow to Hakam Singh on his left bicep, and, on receipt of the said injuries Hakam Singh fell down. Bhola Singh gave two soti blows to Hakam Singh; one on the left shoulder and the other on the back of Hakam Singh. ChandSingh accused gave soti blow to Hakam Singh and the other co-accused also continued giving more blows to said injured. Gurdev Kaur and Pala Singh P.Ws. raised alarm and some other persons also collected near the spot. Thereafter, all the four accused ran away from the spot together with their respective weapons. Gurdev Singh and Jit Singh P.Ws. removed Hakam Singh injured first to Sular Gharat Hospital in a tractor trolley from where Hakam Singh was removed in a jeep to Civil Hospital, Sangrur. SI Mohinder Singh went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of Hakam Singh P.W. on the next day of occurrence and on its basis the formal F.I.R. was registered at the Police Station at 2.15 P.M. After completion of the investigation, the accused were challaned, tried and acquitted, as stated earlier.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. On behalf of the State, it was urged that the learned trial court gravely erred in not relying upon the testimony of Hakam Singh injured which is amply corroborated by the testimony of Gurdev Kaur and medical and other circumstantial evidence on the record. There is delay of about 24 hours in lodging the First Information Report which has not been duly explained by the prosecution in this case. After the occurrence, the injured was allegedly taken to the Hospital by his son Pala Singh, Gurdev Kaur his wife and Gurdev Singh and Jit Singh who reached the spot shortly after the occurrence. All these four persons had passed in front of Police Post Sular Gharat while the injured was removed from the spot to Civil Hospital at Sangrur and after getting the injured admitted in the Hospital, Gurdev Kaur and her son Pala returned to their village. However, no report was lodged with the police by the aforesaid persons including Gurdev Kaur and Pala Singh close relations and two alleged eye witnesses in this case. Thus there was ample time for complainant party making due deliberations and consultations and to introduce the version of its own choice.