STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the following facts :-

(2.) THE prosecution in support of its case examined two eye-witnesses PW-1 Hardev Singh and PW-2 Gursharan Singh; PW-3 Dr. Gurpal Singh, who had conducted the post mortem examination; and PW-4 Gurnam Singh, Draftsman. The remaining evidence of the prosecution was closed by order of the Court as the prosecution had failed to conclude its evidence in spite of several opportunities granted to it.

(3.) THE trial Court held that the prosecution evidence rested exclusively on the statements of PW-1 Hardev Singh and PW-2 Gursharan Singh, the two alleged eye-witnesses. The Court then went on to the evidence of Hardev Singh and observed that several improvements had been made by him in his statement made to the police and his evidence given in Court and in particular noticed that in the earlier statement the main injuries were stated to have been caused to the deceased with a soti, but some effort had been made to change the story to show that they had been caused on account of the fall from the roof. Likewise, the Court found that the manner and the time at which the accused had been arrested was also not clear from the evidence of Hardev Singh as he had given a different story at different times. The Court further observed that the evidence of Gursharan Singh PW did not inspire confidence in the light of the fact that he too had been discrepant as to the manner in which the incident has happened and the time when the police had come to the spot. The Court further observed that it had come in the evidence of Hardev Singh that as it was dark at the time of the incident and the assailant had covered his face with a blanket, it had not been possible for him to identify the assailant by face and he had done so only by his voice and as such the identity of the accused was also in doubt. The Court also notes that the evidence with regard to the arrest of the accused was also not worthy of belief as Hardev Singh and Gursharan Singh P.Ws. had stated that he was arrested on 25.11.1993, whereas ASI Nirmal Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case had shown in the record that the accused was arrested on 28.11.1993. The Court accordingly, vide its judgment dated 10.10.1994, acquitted the accused. The present appeal against acquittal has been filed by the State of Punjab.