Chad Singh And Anr. vs State
1990 Latest Caselaw 532 Del

JUDGMENT

Jaspal Singh, J.

(1) The procaine knit by the prosecution unfolds the yin yang of human nature However, first the back-drop of this sordid drama. The dramatis personae are the alleged eye witnesses Raj Singh (Public Witness 8) Balwan Singh (Public Witness 10),Lal Singh (Public Witness 18) and Rohtas (Public Witness 21). They are no strangers to each. After all, they belong to the same village. Some of them have something more in common-their criminal propensities and a keen sense to flock together. And as we shall see later, they are also endowed "with an astounding capacity to manufacture and blurt gargantuan lies. The other set of course, consists of the appellants namely Chand Singh.Ram Narain, Sri Bhagwan and Sat Pal, out of whom Ram Narain died on July 12, 1990. As per the prosecution, their victim was Baljit Singh

(2) Time now for a brief resume' of-the events as provided by the prosecution. Raj Singh (Public Witness 8) and Baljit Singh (deceased) bad been arrested under Section 388 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having allegedly attacked Kali Ram brother of Chand Singh appellant. Even other- wise, the relations between Chand Singh on the one hand and Baijit Singh, Raj Singh and the other above-mentioned alleged eye witness es on the other hand, we far from happy. They had voted against him in the election for the post of Pradhan and he in turn bad allegedly got Baijit Singh, Raj Singh and Balwan Singh implicated in criminal cases. As for Rohtas, his brothers were allegedly prosecuted on the complaint of Chand Singh's brother. Coming back to that case under Section 308. Balwan Singh (Public Witness 10) and Lal Singh (PW 18) stood sureties for Raj Singh and Baijit Singh respectively, while the said sureties were identified in court by Rohtas. This was on April 8, 1982. The same evening the said two sureties accompanied by Rohtas (Public Witness 21) went to Tihar jail, received Raj Singh and Baijit Singh on their release, and accompanied them to Tilak Nagar from where they all boarded a fully jam-packed bus Their destination was lssapur. The time was 8.45 p m We are told that the appellants who were armed with dandas (three to four feet long (had also boarded the aimed bus. At about 9 15 p.m. when the bus reached near village Mitrao. the appellants made the bus stop, pushed down Raj Singh and Baijit Singh from it. belaboured them with their dandas and in addition thereof Chand Singh, appellant, threw sulphuric acid on Raj Singh and Baljit Singh and thereafter gave a blow on the eye of Raj Singh and caused injuries on the eyes of Baijit Singh with "some pointed weapon". When Balwan Singh tried to intervene, Satpal appellant threw acid on his hand and also gave a blow with his dand on his danda on his head. The appellants then ran away leaving behind their dandas a knife and a bottle. A minute or two thereafter Balwan Singh and Lal Singh left for village Mitrao to arrange for some conveyance, while Rohtas went .to village lisa Pur. At about 9.30 p.m. the police reached the place of occurrence, took the injured to the hospital, recorded the statement officer Singh (Ex. Public Witness 8/A), got the formal first information report recorded on its basis and then proceeded again to the place of occurrence for further investigation. While Baljit Singh succumbed to the injuries. Raj Singh still lives. These, in brief, are then the essentials of the prosecution case.

(3) The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt and consequently convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 and so also under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That is why these appeals.

(4) Before we proceed to examine and analyze the evidence critically, a few things need to be noticed to provide a right perspective.

(5) Raj Singh (Public Witness 8) has known Lal Singh (Public Witness 18) for the last number of years. His uncle and father of Baljit Singh deceased, have known each other closely for the last about 30 years. Rohtas (Public Witness 21) was the class fellow- of Raj Singh in school and is admittedly his close friend. Similarly, Balwan Singb (Public Witness 10) too has been a close friend of Raj Singh and Baljit Singh All the three of them seem to have remained comrades-in-crime also, as all [he three were accused in a case under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code. And as for as Rohtas(pw21)is concerned, he was not only a friend of Baijit Singh but his relation too as admittedly he is a collateral of the father of Baijit Singh, deceased. They were thus all closely knit But that is not all. Some-of them have grave criminal background. Baljit Singh and Raj Singh were together involved not only in the case under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code to which reference has already been -made about but in number of other cases, one of them being on the allegation' that they had snatched a revolver from the Station House Officer of Police Station Najafgarh. Coming to Balwan Singh (Public Witness 10), he too is a co-accused with Raj Singh and Baijit Singh in the revolver snatching case referred to above. besides buffing an accused in a cas(r) under the Arms Act pertaining to Police Station Punjabi Bagh and a case under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code registered by police station Jhajjar, District Rohtak, Haryana. We have already referred to above the ill-will Raj Singh, Baijit Singh and Balwan Singb entertained against Chand Singb, appellant

(6) With tha background provided in the preceding paragraphs, let us proceed to examine the .flesh and bones of the case.

(7) If the statement (ex Public Witness 8/A) made by Raj Singh before the police on the night of the occurrence is to bs believed, he along with Baijit Singh Balwan Singh, Lal Singh and Rohtas had boarded a bus from Tihar jail to Tilak Nagar and from Tilak Nagar they had boarded a bus for their village issapur and it was in in this bus for Issapur .that tb;y bad noticed for the first time all the appellants, It is in evidence that before boarding the bus for Issapur, Baijit Singb, Raj Singb and their other companions had taken tea at Tilak and that there is a continuous flow of bus traffic from Tilak Nagar to Issapur (see Public Witness s 10, 13& 18). The evidence also shows that the appellants numbering four in all carried with them ten dandas and one bottle having sulphuric acid besides a knife. The prosecution wants us to believe that it was a well thought out plan of the appellants to assault and commit murder. To us, all this appears to be incredible. How could the appellants know that the deceased and his companions would be boarding that very bus ? With so many buses going to Issapur at regular interval of about five minutes or so, how could the appellants guess that the deceased and his companions would not be boarding any other bus? And then look at the arms! Four persons carrying ten dandas, one bottle containing sulphuric acid and a knife Where was the need for so many dandas? And then, what would be the natural reaction of a person noticing himself cornered by his heavily armed enemies? He would try to whisk away, avoid, save his neck. The deceased and his companions bad seen the appellants sitting in the bus and heavily armed and yet no attempt was made to leave the bus, or to board another bus. The fact that there was no dearth of buses for Issapur, makes the whole affair look more fishy.

(8) Contrary to statement Ex. Public Witness 8/A made by Raj Singh on the day of the occurrence, he has stated in court that the appellants had also boarded the bus from Tilak Nagar Bus Stop. It that be so, the whole affair becomes more murkier. Enmity being writ large and the appellants being so heavily and visibly armed, the deceased and his companions would ordinarily have been expected to avoid them. They did not. And, let us remember that there was absolutely no compulsion for the deceased and his companions to board that very bus. They could easily board another within a short span of say five minutes or so. And then, what prevented the appellants to attack the deceased and his friends at the Tilak Nagar bus stop itself ? It was argued that they did not as probably they did not want to have witnesses around. With respect, nothing can be more hollow. When allegedly they dragged the deceased and Raj Singb out of the bus after making it stop, they were not acting in the wilderness. They were rather under the glare of hundreds of eyes.

(9) What has been recorded above is not all. As we shall show in the succeeding paragraphs, the prosecution case suffers from suicidal pot-holes, incredulities and unnatural sequence of events. We have already shown above bow closely knit and interwined were the deceased and his companions to each other. And. once ibis is kept in mind. what would strike even an untrained eye is their conspicuous absence from the statement Ex Public Witness 8/A made by Raj Singh. Its perusal would show. and this is of utmost significance, that it no where states that Public Witness s Balwan Singb, Lal Singh and Rohtas bad gone to the Tihar jail to receive the deceased and Raj Singh. or that they were with them at Tilak Nagar bus stop. or that they too bad witnessed the occurrence. Why these most glaring omissions ? Why this Sphinx like silence ? Not that the learned counsel for the State did not try to explain. He did. As per him, at the time the statement Ex. Public Witness 8/A wns mad. Raj Singb was in pain and if, under such state, be omitted to mention the role played by the above named persons or omitted altogether the mention their presence, much should not be made out of it. It was further argued that,in any case. Raj Singh bad made a supplementary statement clearly mentioning the names and the roles played by the said Balwan Singb. Lal Singh and Rohtas Attractive ? With respect, not at all. The statement Ex. Public Witness 8/A was recorded in the hospital, in the presence of a doctor and after be bad been declared fit to make the same. This being the position, and their being no medical evidence to the contrary, the story of his being in pain and thus in a disjointed state of mind, has to be rejected not only as being far from truth but also for it being a crude afterthought. True, we are told that Raj Singh had made a supplemental statement as well. True also that names of Balwan Singh, Lal Singh and Robots figure therein. But then, does it wash away the blemishes of statement Ex. Public Witness 8tA which was made after due deliberations and in an alert state of mind ? And then. when was the supplementary statement made ? We are told by the Investigating officer that it was made in the hospital itself after about half-an-hoar. Significantly, there is no documentary evidence to show at what point of type it was recorded. The Investigating Officer admittedly made no note of it even in the ziminies. This is not at all If the supplementary statement was made in the hospital itself, why it was not got counter-signed from the medical doctor attending on him, as was done done in the case of statement Ex. Public Witness 8/A ? This again is not all. Why, before the recording of the supplementary statement, the opinion of the medical doctor wai not obtained regarding the fitness of Raj Singh, to make a statement ? At least such an endorsement could have furnished a guarantee that the statement was actually made and in a fit state of mind. Something else also needs to be noticed. As per the endorsement of the Investigating Officer, the statement Ex. Public Witness 8/A was dispatched to the police station at 11.30 p.m. If the supplementary statement had actually been recorded much before 11.30 p.m., as is being tried to be made out, the factum of its recording keeping in View its significance, would have found mention in the endorsement. Howner, what makes the cat come out of the bag is the statement made by the Invited gating Officer S I. Ram Singh (Public Witness 28) on this aspect of the matter. He states:" ...facts of the case were disclosed to him (Raj Singb) and then be made that second statement". And as per the vernacular record, the supplementary statement was recorded as there were lacunae in the first statement. Does all this not show an element of tutoring ? An element of padding ? We feel, the alleged recording of the supplementary statement paints the prosecution in dark hues and makes the whole affair smell fishy.

(10) Having noticed above that the names of the alleged eye witnesses Balwan Singh. Lal Singh and Robta did not find mention at all in the statement Ex Public Witness 8/ and having also notice as to under what suspicious and far from convincing circumstances the supplementary statement came to be recorded introducing their names and assigning specific roles to them, let us proceed to notice the conduct of these persons.

(11) That Balwan Singb, Lal Singb and Rohtas were the comrades-inarm and close confidantes of Raj Singh and Baijit Singh and Baljit Singh deceased stand already highlighted. That they are not ordinary, simple, peace-loving but men who allegedly dare snatch away a revolver from a Station House Officer, also stands noticed. We are laying emphasis on these aspects because their conduct has to be seen and measured in that background, With the preliminaries over. here is a resume of their conduct. They knew, for who else could know better than them, but there was nothing but bad blood between Baijit and Raj Singb on the one band and has appellants on the other. They saw the appellants heavily armed and boarding the same bus.. Where they do not expected to react apprehensively and to warm the deceased and Raj Singh of the lurking dangers ? Inside the bus the appellants allegedly pushed Baijit Singh deceased and Raj Singb with their dandas and made the bus stop. Where the e witnesses not expected to intervene or at least raise voice of protest? Baijit Singb and Raj Singh were allegedly assaulted, beaten and injured Under the Very nose of these witnesses, and still they made no effort worth the name to intervene and save their companions. They did not even raise their little fingers in protest. They, in short, said nothing and did nothing. They did not even approach the fellow passengers. To crown it all, they did not even request the driver or the conductor of the bus to carry the injured to the hospital. They did not make them even the most innocuous of the requests which could be made-to contact the police and to report the matter.

(12) The conduct of Balwan Singh, Lal Singh and Raj Singh after the occurrence is, to say the least, more ignominious. We are asked to believe that after the assault and the causing of the injuries, the appellants bad run away leaving behind their dandas.a knife and the bottle which contained sulphuric acid. If the appellants had really obliged the appellants (Incredibly) by throwing away their arms, what prevented the witnesses to catch hold of them or at least to make an attemp in that direction? Something more! It is in evidence that their is heavy traffic on the road and that vehicles pass by after every about one or two minutes. If that be so, why did the witnesses not make even-an effort to stop any of the passing vehicles ? Instead, they did something which astounds and leaves one aghast. They left the injured on that road itself, unattended and uncared for. And, let us not forget that it was a road with heavy vehicular traffic. Any vehicle could crush them. They did not even bother to make them lie on the pavement which could have been a much safer place. And, where did they go ? No. not to the police station although it was quite nearby. No, they did rot seek any medical help even. Two of them (Balwant Singh and Lal Singh) went to village Mitrao "for arranging conveyance" and the third (Robots) went to the village "to give information of this incident" Why did they go to village Mitrao when conveyance could be easily arranged at the place of occurrence itself ? We do not know whom they contacted at village Mitrao, as none from that village has been examined. Balwan Singh states that in village Mitrao they had met "many persons" but he "did not ask anybody to inform the police." How strange ? And, let us not forget that whereas village Mitrao is only one kilometer away from the place of occurrence, the distance between the place of occurrence and Najafgarh is only 1 1/2 kilometers (see Pw Balwan Singh). We also need to remember that there is a taxi stand and a bus stand at Najafgarh. As per these two witnesses of the prosecution, they could get no conveyance at village Mitrao and consequently come back to the place of occurrence at, and this is important, 1a.m. It needs no Milkha Singh to cover two kilometers in about half-an-hour or so They took nearby four hours. Where bad they actually been ? And then, why did they not go to Najafgarh ? There, they were at least assured of a taxi. The third, namely Rohtas behaved no differently. As per him there is a village Pradhan and a Lambardar in the village and yet be informed none. He too did not ask anyone to inform the police. He came back to the village and went to sleep He did not even bother to enquire about the state of health of the injured, and the explanation given for his attitude is more than weird. He says "they were almost dead and, therefore, I bad never tried to find out about them afterwards." Imagine this attitude towards the parsons for whom he had spent his day in the courts and then the later part at the gates or Tihar jail.

(13) Besides what has been recorded above, the material on the record farther takes the sting away from the prosecution. Significantly, in the statement Ex Public Witness 8/A,Raj Singh nowhere spoke of any knife or knife injuries. We have. with a view to satisfy ourselves, gone through his alleged supplementary statement also. Even that is silent about knife or knife injuries. However, it is for the first time in evidence that knife and knife injuries are introduced. T6isi¯ of no mean, significance. In any case, the evidence with regard to incised wounds is extremely contradictory. Whereas Raj Singh speaks of only one injury on his eye with a sharp edged object and injuries on the eyes of Baljit Singh deceased, Balwan Singh does not speak of any such injury on the person of Raj Singh. As per bin Chand Singh appellant had caused knife injuries only on the eyes of Baijit Singh deceased. Public Witness Lal Singb gives yet another version. As per him whereas Raj Singh was given knife injuries on the left eye and right leg.. Baljit Singh. was stabbed on his head, right arm and left leg and that in all Baljit Singh had been given 3/4 knife blows which had "pierced" his body. As per Pw Rohtas whereas Raj Singh was given only one injury on his left eye, Baljit Singh deceased was given knife injuries on his right leg, both eyes and leftarm. Each witness has thus given his own divergent version. Their versions are divergent not only with regard to the number of injuries but also with regard to the manner they were caused and where.

(14) It is not only the alleged ocular evidence which is contradictory with regard to the injuries allegedly caused with a knife, the medical evidence too has contributed in making the confusion worse confounded. In this respect reference may be made to the statement of Dr. Veena Sabharwal (Public Witness 15) and so also to the statement and post mortem report of Dr. Bharat Singh (PW 9). Whereas Dr. Veena Sabharwal speaks of as many ai 'eight incised wound injures on the person of Baljit Singh, as per Dr. Bharat Singh there was not even a single injury on his person which could be said to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon.

(15) We arc still not finished with the injuries. Even if it be assumed that injuries were actually caused with a sharp edged weapon, the ocular evidence does not compliment fully the report and statement of Dr. Veena sabharwal. Let us it start with RajSingh. It be is to be believed, BljitSingh was caused only tw6 knife injuries and they were on his eyes only. Dr. Veena Sabharwal speaks of only one injury over the right eye. She speaks of no injury on the left eye. What is of more significance is the fact that Raj Singh. does not support Dr. Sabharwal with regard to seven other incised wounds shown by her on the person of Baljit Singh. Sinmilary, Balwan Singh Public Witness also speaks of knife injuries over the eyes only. He alio, like Raj Singh say nothing about any other knife injury on the person of Baijit Singh. As per Lal Singh, knife injuries caused to Baijit Singh numbered three or fouronly. 'As already noticed. Dr. Veena Sabharwal speaks of as many as eight such injuries. Similarly Rohtas too speaks of only four injuries, two of which, were over the eyes. He too thus does not lend his foil-throated support to, Dr. Veena Sabharwal.

(16) We discern the same symphony of discordant notes in the case of ocular and medical evidence relating to Raj Singh. Whereas Raj Singh speaks of only one knife injury over his eye, Balwan Singh is totally silent As per Lal Singh, knife injuries were given to Raj Singb over his left eye and right leg. Coming to Rohtas be speaks of only one knife injury an(j that too over his left eye. Coming to the medical evidence,as per the medico legal Report (Ex. Public Witness 26/A), Raj Singh bad one incised wound over his right check, and one incised wound over his left lower lip. The Report speak of no other injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon.

(17) And while we are on medical evidence, let us also refer to Balwan Singh. He says when he had tried to intervene.hce was given a danda blow on his head and acid injuries were caused on his lef hand He repeatedly asserts that acid injury was cased on his left hand and not right hand However, Dr. L.T.Ramani (Public Witness 25; who examined him, speaks of no head injury, The only injury found by him was significantly not on his left but right hand.

(18) Lastly, as per Ex. Public Witness 8/A, lathi blows were given only on the "'feet and hands' of Raj Singh and BaljitSingh If that be so, it too does not explain the other injuries found by the medical doctors on the other parts of the bodies of Raj Singh and Baljit Singh,

(19) Besides what has been noticed above, our attention was drawn to various other material contradictions We need sot burden the judgment by referring to each one of them. Noticing a few would suffice Whereas, according to Raj Singh his supplementary statement was recorded after about two hours of the earlier statement as per S.I.. Ram Singh it was recorded after 30 minutes. Whereas neither in Ex., Public Witness 8/A nor in his supplementary statement Raj Singh. speaks of any knife, in his statement bespeaks of knives having been , used by the appellants. All other witnesses speak of only one knife. Whereas according to Raj Singh, S.I. Rana .Singh was not with S.I. Dalel Singh when he was lifted from the spot, S.I. Ram Singh states he was very much there. Whereas, according to Raj Singh when police came to the spot after about 15 or 20 minutes of the occurrence, witnesses Balwan Singh, Lal Singh and Rohtas were also present there, the said witnesses have stated that they were not there Whereas, according to Public Witness Lal Singh, he along with Balwan Singh and Rohtas had gone to village Mitrao from the place of occurrence and from village Mitrao Public Witness Rosas' bad gone. to village Issapur .PW Rohtas says he went straight to Issapur. And, whereas according to Public Witness Lal Singh he and Balwan Singh bad :come back to the place of occurrence at about 10.30 or 10.45 p.m. and till 1: 30 p.m. they had just kept sitting there, as per Public Witness Balwan Singh they had come back,to the place of occurrence at about 1 a.m.

(20) It was argued by Mr.Sethi, that she Fir 65 in this case was ante dated and ante timed 'The fact that Fir 64 relates to an incident of 20th February and the Fir 66 is of April 11, positively, assumes significant and keeping in view the overall conduct of the-witnesses and the Investigating Officer, the submission made by Mr. Sothi cannot be dismissed: as far- fetched. What further-takes the case de mal en pis is the fact that no special report was sent to the concerned Metropolitan Magisirate, and no, necessary details were recorded in the reports as required under Sections 154 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(21) What does one make out of what has been recorded in the preceding paragraphs.? Each step treaded. leaves an indelible imprint of uncervainty, confusion and suspicion. The prosecution has attempted . to build a bastion on sand dunes. A little critical eye and the brick and mortar crumble, to 'the ground. We are convinced the that Balwan Singh.Lal Singh and Rohtas were no where near the scene and being ready pawns, were introduced later to play the roles crafted after deliberation and that Raj Singh, having scant regard for truth, conceived and executed this diabolical plan with the connivance of the Investigating Officer,to rope in the appellants.

(22) Being convinced that the prosecution has failed .to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the appeals arc accepted, and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence stand set aside.