STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. CHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent, Charan Singh, and his wife Gurmit Kaur, were brought to trial for having committed offence punishable under Section 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the following facts:

(2.) ON 9th September, 1986 at about 8.30 P.M., Amarjit Singh complainant, along with Harpal Singh and Ranbir Singh, were sitting near the main gate of their village Balion and were counting the money collected by them in connection with some tournament that was to be held there. In the meantime, Charan Singh accused armed with a knife and his wife Gurmit Kaur armed with a Gandasi came there and said that they would teach him a lesson for not allowing them to use the electric motor. On saying so, Charan Singh accused gave a blow with his whereupon Harpal Singh and Raghbir Singh intervened and snatched the knife away from him. Charan Singh then took thegandasi from his wife and gave a blow with it which hit on the little finger of the left hand of Amarjit Singh. Charan Singh also gave gandasi blows which hit Amarjit Singh on different parts of the body. Harpal Singh and Raghbir Singh thereupon rescued Amarjit singh and took him to the doctor who found seven injuries on his person; whereas injury Nos. 1 and 3 were opined to have been caused with a sharp edged weapon, the others were found to have been caused with a blunt weapon. Injury No. 1 was thereafter declared grievous after the X -ray examination whereas all the injuries were found simple in nature. The case was registered on the complaint Ex. PA lodged by Amarjit Singh injured and the police after arresting the accused took into possession the knife vide recovery memo Ex. PC. On the above allegations both the accused were made to stand trial. The trial court found that the first information report had not been lodged promptly and the strained relations between the two parties indicated that the accused might have been involved falsely; that the medical evidence did not conform to the ocular testimony; that the witnesses were discrepant on material particulars and the plea of alibi of accused Charan Singh could be believed and having held as above, acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal by the State of Punjab against that order.

(3.) WE have gone through the records of the case with the help of the learned State counsel and find that the facts recorded by the trial court are duly supported by the evidence on record. The trial court has first and foremost held that the prosecution had not been able to explain the delay in the lodging of the first information report. The distance between the police station and the place of the incident was only about 3 Kms. and though the incident had taken place on 9th September, 1986 at about 8.30 P.M. the first information report had been lodged at 11.05 P.M. on 10th September, 1986, that is, after a delay of about 26 hours although the two eye -witnesses of the incident, that is, Harpal Singh and Raghbir Singh and even the injured Amarjit Singh were in the hospital at 10.40 P.M. on 9th September, 1986 and as per the medico legal reports his condition was normal but no effort was made either by the prosecution or by the doctor to inform the police for almost 26 hours. We are of the opinion that in the light of the above fact, the prosecution evidence has to be scrutinised with more care. It will be seen that one of the eye -witnesses Harpal singh was closely related to the injured Amarjit Singh, and Raghbir Singh, the other eye -witness who was truly independent was not produced by the prosecution. The trial Court has also found for good reasons that the evidence of the injured himself as also Harpal singh P.W. was discrepant on material particulars and as such, no reliance could be placed on their testimony.